Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

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

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


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

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

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


 * Response to Tariqabjotu: Granted, the ArbCom request doesn't require posting evidence, but an admin made some pretty extraordinary claims about a longstanding editor. By failing to give any evidence to his accusations, it appears that the motive was to poison the well. PHG's disruptions of the article in question were definitely inappropriate, but the sentence "publishing original research in Wikipedia, misrepresenting sources, and frustrating the deletion process and consensus by tendentiously reinstalling content that the community has decided to remove," is a fairly heavy-handed accusation. Jehochman followed up these accusations with a suggested remedy of indef blocking.
 * Given all of that, I think that since both the accusations and suggested remedy are fairly extreme, it would have been prudent to back up his accusations with evidence. Perhaps PHG has some behavioral problems outside of the article in question, and if that's the case, I'm sure the ArbCom members (and those of us that are unaware of other problems) would like to see evidence of it. In lieu of that, all of us are forced to assume Jehochman made his claims in bad faith or that PHG is indeed a bad faith editor as his claims assert. Neither case is preferable, hence my original point.  Justin  chat 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
This case should most definately be accepted; while an underlying content dispute was the catalyst, the behaviors of the editors involved, in particular those of PHG, have spiraled out of the community's ability to control. For example:
 * Since the abortive FAC last September, numerous attempts have been made to improve the article; all significant changes (and even some minor ones) have been reverted by PHG        who displays rather clear ownership issues.
 * The minority POV which was originally under dispute has now sprawled to more than 50 paragraphs in this article (even though the edit summary said "revert" ) and has been systematically inserted into scads of other articles creating more than a little bit of disruption that is requiring some rather serious cleanup efforts. (See this talk page post for the list of articles known to have been affected) The behavioral side of this issue stems from PHG is abusively edit warring, subverting myriad other articles and creating numerous POV forks in an attempt to "win" a content dispute.
 * PHG has also canvassed in an attempt to skew the consensus.
 * At least 6 other editors (myself included) are currently working productively on the article via talk page discussion; this was especially apparent during the 24 hours when PHG was blocked from interfering. These editors do not all agree, so this is not about one side winning the dispute.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. I request that the Committee accept this case to determine one way or the other. Durova Charge! 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having now seen evidence of misrepresentation of sources, I urge the Committee to not only accept this case but to rename it PHG. The problem is greater than one article and is largely - perhaps entirely - confined to his conduct.  This editor has been conducting what Wikipedia euphemistically calls original research and what the rest of the world terms academic dishonesty.  That is, he has been misusing source material in order to claim that recognized experts have asserted things which they cannot reasonably be supposed to have concluded - all tending toward a hypothesis that the Mongol Empire was considerably more powerful than mainstream historians concur that it was.  When other editors call upon him to step back from this extreme and novel view, he forks articles to continue promulgating it; when they identify specific misuse of one source, he changes the subject to assertions about other sources.  Nothing persuades him.  I've seen Adam Bishop (an actual doctoral candidate in Medieval studies) attempt to advise PHG and get rebuffed.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by ElC
I'm a bit concerned with Elonka's third-person (addressed to others) usage of PHG's talk page today to showcase, at length, her criticism. El_C 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been criticized by Shell Kinney ("most unhelpful line to take" [etc.] ) for my statement here and on the talk page. On further thought, I don't see what I have to retract. Just because it seems clear that PHG has already been found guilty, does not mean everything goes; that it is some sort of a free for all; that his talk page may be turned into an evidence page (a mere day or two before we have official evidence pages set up, anyway) without his explicit consent. Once we stop guarding the rights of the accused, it's all down hill from there. El_C 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment, as someone with professional historical training, on PHG's contributions. Well, I don't really have much to add that hasn't been said here already. Except, if the Arbitration Committee and others are able to bring together a panel of experts (not me, I specialize in 20th Century history), to not only look at this article, but also his prior contributions (including several FAs), that would be ideal. Because, clearly, certain methodological practices on his part do not add up. El_C 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned with the lengths to which Elonka seems prepared to go to demonstrate to me that my objection is unfounded. All I'm saying it that using another user's talk page as an evidence page without securing their permission, oversteps user talk page etiquette. I hope that both Elonka, and her supporters, will be able to draw this conclusion, and move on. El_C 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Alvestrand
I believe that PHG has clearly demonstrated behaviour that is harmful to Wikipedia. This type of editor (the one that seems to appear reasonable at a quick glance, but is pursuing a single point of view with total disregard to others', and is willing to spend considerable energy working around the rules intended to prevent such behaviour) is one of the most frustrating types of conflict that Wikipedia has to deal with.

Elonka deserves praise for having had the stamina to deal with this person, and PHG should be banned quickly and permanently. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

 * Copied from Requests for arbitration for archiving, initiator withdrew request. Daniel (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * ,  notification 
 * ,  notification 
 * , initiator

Statement by Daniel
I ask that the Committee consider amending the above case; in particular remedy one, "PHG restricted", which was passed uncontested and currently reads:
 *  is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

I propose to make the simple change of "articles" to "pages". Although this may seem minute to the point of being redundant and a waste of time, I respectfully request that the Committee considers the comments made at Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles, and also respectfully ask whether Committee members feel that the current remedy is effective in dealing with this and similar situations in the future.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The remedy explicitly allows him to edit talk pages, so he would not be restricted in that way. Given the history of PHG, it is (in my opinion) fair to assume that should these articles be deleted, he will simply create more on different topics and claim that the MfD does not mandate a G4 deletion as the text and subject matter is different, even if the disruption is the same in everything but subpage title. I feel there is little doubt the MfD will be closed as delete.
 * Reply to Sam

Furthermore, on the specific issue of userpages, I believe that findings of fact such as: ...suggest PHG will continue to edit medieval history userspace copies in a manner which contradicts the userspace policy, which states that subpages "[are] not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", as well as providing that "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages" (emphasis mine). I believe a simple modification to the restriction will stop said disruption.
 * "PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support",
 * "PHG has isolated on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole",
 * "[R]eview of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion", and
 * "[PHG] has often failed to acknowledge any legitimacy to the concerns raised about his edits"

Respectfully, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"I trust that he will be guided by the outcome of that discussion and not demand (for example) that he be allowed to keep created new userspace pages and requiring new MfD's if this MfD closes with a delete result" — if he does, I agree that this request is moot; however, given the text of his talk page over the last couple of days, I find this highly unlikely. Would you suggest immediately speedy deleting any futher userpage copies regardless of whether they apply to the letter of CSD G4 or not, leaving a warning, and then blocking if it reoccurs? I'd be happy to adopt that if you, as a respected community member (in this situation, as opposed to Committee member in a formal voting environment), feel that it is the best course of action. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Brad

Statement by Jehochman
Original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. PHG has been asked not to edit certain topics because he has been unable to comply with this requirement for whatever reason. If PHG is writing about these same topics in userspace, there is a high probability that it is original research. We should not be required to spend even more volunteer time to debug each incident. There is no reason for an editor to compile original research in userspace, and Wikipedia is not a hosting provider. PHG should be warned that this activity is not allowed, and that if continued, the result will be a block. Jehochman Talk 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka
I see what Daniel is getting at here, and I support it, but think that it could be even stronger. The problem as I see it isn't just that PHG is continuing to skate the edge of his restrictions, but that he has never indicated, even once, an acknowledgement that he understood what he did wrong.

This is actually symptomatic of a larger problem which I see with the way that the Wikipedia culture implements blocks. And I am speaking here as a professional online community manager, who has been doing this for 18 years. In a nutshell: When someone is disruptive within a community, and they are blocked repeatedly, you shouldn't keep letting them back in, unless the individual acknowledges that they understood what they did wrong,  and further, that they are capable of promising that they're going to do better.  Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up with a revolving door, where a disruptive editor just continues to disrupt. It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out".

PHG is a classic example of the problem. Even during his most recent block, he continues to argue with FT2, he continues to proclaim his innocence (see User talk:PHG). Every indicator that I have seen from PHG, says that he is just going to continue with problematic behavior, that he is going to keep repeating the same arguments, and that he is going to keep on doing effectively the same things that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. In my opinion, what needs to be done is that he needs to be blocked indefinitely, until he is able to make a promise that he is going to do better. If he can't do that, then don't let him back. We've all got better things to do with our time, than to keep cleaning up after him. I do understand the desire to "hope for reform," but it has to be a reasonable hope. If PHG gave his word that he was going to try to reform, sure, I could have hope too. But he has not. --Elonka 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (followup) Since PHG continues to violate sanctions (today he re-created an article in his userspace that had been deleted at MfD, and he is continuing to argue against consensus at various talkpages), I am requesting another block. Details and diffs are available at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. --Elonka 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Abd
I became concerned, in following the MfD mentioned above, that the ArbComm decision was being misrepresented. I found it quite carefully crafted and precise. It did not generally condemn PHG's work, but noted problems with his sourcing. The FoF did not reject his work in toto, and it specifically asserted a continuation of an assumption of good faith, which would indicate that the sourcing problems found were not considered deliberate falsification of sources, but rather unintentional misrepresentation of a kind that, while less than cautious and careful, and certainly improper and worthy of reprimand, commonly happens when a writer has a POV. Combined with tendentious and uncivil argument, this justified a ban from editing the relevant articles, for a year, but participation in those articles, through Talk, was permitted and encouraged, provided it was civil.

In the MfD, however, I found many statements that exaggerated what had been decided, or even that implied the contrary of what had been decided. Thus, because much of this originally came from adverse parties in the Arbitration, it appeared to me that an original content dispute and conflict and resulting enmity between editors was being continued through the MfD. Rather than repeat all of this (I have no intention of blackening the name of any editor) I'll refer to the MfD, Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. I placed a note above the editor comments flagging the involvement of editors in the prior arbitration, with no implication of impropriety; this resulted in a nascent edit war, terminated when another editor, who had, in my opinion, cross the line into edit warring and incivility, prudently self-reverted. (Though, without that, I would not have reverted, but rather would have followed WP:DR.) (This is described in an AN/I report, currently at WP:AN/I) My original notice was moved to Talk for the MfD. Other involved editors began commenting on my Talk page..

It became apparent to me that there is a well of bad feelings about PHG and his contributions. I have no opinion about who was right and who was wrong (and both can be right and both can be wrong). However, the ArbComm decision did not do what was claimed about it, that I could see. I have no action to recommend to ArbComm, it seemed the decision was very clear and properly crafted; however, the decision only dealt with PHG, and there is another side to this, which came out in the MfD, where the most negative parts of the ArbComm ruling, which was precise and nuanced, were emphasized, and the positive aspects were ignored, such as the affirmation of ArbComm that good faith continued to be assumed, and the encouragement of PHG to continue to contribute, including to Talk with the history articles, where his userspace collection of materials might be of assistance. The deletion of the files (as has now been done) could be a hindrance to that contribution, though minor. There were other remedies suggested that would have addressed legitimate concerns without inhibiting PHG's legitimate work: for the concerns that he was using his space as a web host, the files could be blanked, leaving the working material accessible to him in History. For the concerns about the lost History, the files could have been restored from prior deletions or the like. The concern that the files would be a source of further incorrectly sourced edits was already covered by the ArbComm restriction to Talk; another editor would then have to take responsibility for the verification of any sources asserted and the appropriateness of the text. I would not, myself, ask for Deletion Review, since less troublesome remedies exist for PHG and I have no interest in the files, or the underlying dispute. My sole reason for making this statement is to call the attention of ArbComm to an abuse of an ArbComm ruling. If the ruling was, in fact, as negative about PHG as has been claimed, and I was simply out to lunch, I'd appreciate correction so that whatever disruption took place does not take place again. --Abd (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor update by Orderinchaos
The MfD closed delete two days ago. The rationale was: "Delete - USER is relevant here. User space is not a free pass to hide articles that were deleted.". Orderinchaos 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update by Daniel
After the MfD closed as delete, PHG proceeded to recreate User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance and, when that was deleted per CSD G4, created User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century). He has also since been blocked again for violating the remedies of the case in the mainspace; see this section. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recuse, obviously. Daniel (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not sure that a change is required. The MfD is ongoing and I will not prejudge it, but if it results in the userspace pages being deleted then recreation would be barred anyway. If it does not, then PHG can continue to attempt to bring his userspace pages in line with NPOV and other policies and then draw attention on talk pages. I do not see the disruption on talk pages which needs to be tackled by banning PHG from them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The case closed less than a week ago. I tried to be precise in the wording of the decision in recognizing that the primary (though not sole) issue with PHG's editing was the introduction of questionable mainspace content, so the remedy was focused primarily on that issue as well. If it proves necessary, I am not averse to expanding the remedy, but I would rather do so on the basis of more than a few days' experience in the immediate aftermath of the decision. For what it is worth, I do not see PHG's participation in the MfD as especially problematic, but I trust that he will be guided by the outcome of that discussion and not demand (for example) that he be allowed to keep created new userspace pages and requiring new MfD's if this MfD closes with a delete result. I am more troubled by his creating new articles on the borderline of the areas from which he is restricted from editing in mainspace and I hope he will be mindful of the overall intent of the committee's decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At this stage, decline. The decision was not arbitrary. PHG has made good contributions in some areas. Unfortunately he is also highly tendentious in others and while some of his editing is good, a significant part is unusable (and he doesn't seem to recognize this fully). The remedy for article space is to remove the ability to disrupt completely. But the remedy for other spaces does not need to be so blunt. Provided he can contribute usefully, his actions on talk pages are not problematic beyond management. For example, they can be ignored if they prove unhelpful. PHG is also under a remedy that clarifies certain kinds of conduct are disruptive, if they involve failure to acknowledge consensus, which is unusually not stated as a principle but as a remedy whose repeated breach is actually actionable. If PHG were to act in a disruptive manner, for example by creating fork pages, or adding bulk text to talk pages without fair cause, or otherwise, then there are normal administrative tools and approaches able to handle this. (As with most Wikipedia dispute resolution we don't use them unless there is good cause.) When I blocked PHG recently, I reviewed his talk page contributions and found some were acceptable, some were problematic; there was a concern but not yet actionable. If time passes and PHG continues to try and raise topics on which the community has deemed his editing unhelpful then a final warning that he would be blocked if he continues, then warnings and Remedy 4 would be the way to go, via usual admin tools and WP:TE/WP:DISRUPT/WP:CONSENSUS (and possibly WP:GAME/WP:POINT/WP:AE if applicable). I decline therefore not because it's not a concern, but because actually the community already has all it needs to fairly handle it, if/when it were to become intolerable. For an example of PHG being notified on his conduct, see User talk:PHG. We should allow a degree of patience, but that's not without limit. FT2 (Talk 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons behind article space restrictions (not banning) is a hope of a reform. Restricting users from talk pages would lead nowhere unless there is disruption of course. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The modification I proposed explicitly allows PHG to contribute to talk pages; see my reply to Sam in my section above. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Daniel but you are talking about disruption above which I don't see. The remedies are based on FoFs and not assumptions. We can wait and see especially that the MfD is still open. What I hope is that everyone accepts the decision of the closing admin instead of wasting time around DRv, AN/I, etc because that would definitely lead to 'disruption' - whether directly or indirectly. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With PHG having recreated an article after it was deleted at MfD, and trying to create another page with a different title (now also deleted), I feel that this is no longer an "assumption". PHG has also been reblocked for disrupting the mainspace as well. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed to changing this case's decisions so soon. I'd give it a little longer to see how it plays out in practise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * 
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Request by PHG
I am requesting that the above case be amended to the effect that User:Elonka be restricted from attacking me through abusive representation of the Arbcom decision. Elonka is trying to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, and is misusing Arbcom restrictions to achieve her means. Most recently, she pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." 


 * Claims/evidence:


 * Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" . There was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (now France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period.
 * Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
 * As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." . This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new (, far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me), or totally legitimate as they had not been discussed in detail yet
 * Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)" However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles (as already re-affirmed by the Arbcom when a request to the contrary failed ).
 * Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user".

I request a fair treatment from the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be restricted against harassing me or misrepresenting my Arbcom restrictions or the nature of my contributions. PHG (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Requested remedy

''Clerk note: this statement has been refactored to within the statement length limit. &mdash; Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)''

Statement by AGK
I have commented several times on this issue. Perhaps it would be best if I reiterate my thoughts from AE: see here.

If any ammendment to be made, I feel that the most suitable one would be a clarification of the Committee's view on PHG's contributions and, by extension, his disruption. The initial restriction was very much, I feel, a message to PHG that his editing habits need to change. Rather than interpret the spirit of that remedy, and use his last reprieve from project exclusion and firmer remedies (which were very much on the table during the Franco-Mongol case) well, he has proceeded to duck around the fine points of the remedy (e.g., creating articles that fell just outside of the "medieval history" period, from which he was restricted).

I feel PHG's conduct since the initial arbitration case was closed has fell well beneath the standards expected of a project editor, and I think it harmful for him to be allowed to continue in this vein. Anthøny 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * {extended comment by PHG, removed} I do not wish to enter into yet another round of ping-pong. Anthøny  17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Amendment, from AGK
This amendment proposed with a view to amending Franco-Mongol alliance to: 1/ cover all history articles, per recent gaming of the remedy's specifics, such that he is editing articles which, although very clearly related to history, are not covered by the remedy's boundaries of "medieval or ancient history"; 2/ include all pages of the project, rather than simply articles.

"Remedy one of Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance is amended such that, is now restricted from editing and creating any pages related to history, for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion."

The "blanket" nature of this proposal, in that it covers the general subject area of "history", as opposed to specific branches of it, is proposed in light of PHG's recent progression from "medieval and ancient history", to more recent, renaissance history. It has become somewhat apparent that he will continue to roam around the countless branches of history, and it is a waste of both the Committee's and the Community's time to consistently bring in additional remedies, restricting his recent area of activity.

This blanket nature is somewhat drawn from recent cases, such as (and here I flinch, at having to drag back in recent cases) Privatemusings, where Privatemusings was restricted from all BLP articles. My proposed amendment to Franco-Mongo ' s fairly close-to-the-bone approach has the added advantage of noting that disruption to certain topic areas will not be tolerated, and will be handled robustly.

I am also open to further chopping-and-changing of this proposal, including to include either point 1/ or 2/ (see my introduction), although I obviously think that to be less than ideal. Anthøny 18:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
PHG has certainly exhausted my patience. This request by PHG amounts to vexatious litigation. I request the arbitration committee address this dispute with greater vigor. At some point we must stop wasting time on disruptive users who show no sign or intention of improving. Can somebody tell me why we allow PHG to continue editing any history articles, or any articles, given the history of tendentious misrepresentation of sources? Is there any reason to think this is related only to Franks and Mongols, as opposed to Franco-Japanese history? Jehochman Talk 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: he is permitted to continue editing history articles, because his restriction covers only "medieval and ancient history". Hence, his contributions to France-Japan relations is not a violation of his restrictions, as the subject of the article does not fall as applicable to medieval history. Of course, that's very much gaming the system, something which I was very vocal about when he first created that article. Unfortunately, the ruling is very clear, and with regards to that article, I'm on shaky ground. Anthøny  14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why the ruling has failed to end the dispute. We need PHG to stop pushing novel theories of history via Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, you have demanded far more than your fair share of attention. You fought tooth and nail, forcing us to spend inordinate amounts of time debugging your Franco-Mongol stories.  Please understand that this will not be repeated in other areas of Wikipedia.  You have not yet acknowledged the nature of past problems, nor undertaken to do better in the future.  As such, I think it is time for you to take a break from editing, to reflect on what has happened here, and to see if you want to change your approach. Jehochman  Talk 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, you previously denied that anything was wrong with your work on Franco-Mongol alliance. You were proven wrong and subjected to sanctions, but you never acknowledged your mistakes, nor promised to do better. Now you deny that anything is wrong at France-Japan relations (19th century).  This is de ja vu all over again. Jehochman  Talk 17:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Abd has their own problems with disruption, including close ties to banned User:Sarsaparilla and the Delegable proxy incident. Their sudden involvement in this matter, upon invitation by PHG is a very poor idea. Jehochman  Talk 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Christian Polak and PHG's upload log that shows repeated instances of images being uploaded without proper licensure. Until PHG undertakes to respect Wikipedia policies on content and copyright, editing needs to cease. Mentorship might be a reasonable alternative to banning. The current situation of unsupervised editing is creating a significant burden on other volunteers.  Please respect our time and effort, and resolve this problem.  The arbitration decision thus far has simply moved the wrecking ball from one location to another. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. It is clear to me that PHG continues to build walled gardens of original research at Wikipedia.  I urge the arbitrators to closely review the reference checking at Articles for deletion/Christian Polak.  For example, see this comment.  Christian Polak has been cited multiple times by PHG in other articles,  sometimes as the only reference. .  It appears that the works of Polak, a businessman and amateur historian, have not been verified independently. PHG provides impressive looking references that fool a substantial number of casual reviewers into thinking that the information is reliable. See Talk:Christian Polak.  PHG has been warned extensively not to do this, yet he continues full force. To make matters worse PHG has been extremely stubborn and combative when other editors point out problems.  See WP:AE in particular. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we get some motion on a motion, please? PHG has been blocked for one week, and is showing no sign whatsoever of accepting any feedback. They are heading inevitably towards an indefinite block. Decisive action now might avoid that regrettable result. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel
I still support my comments here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
This is nothing more than a regurgitation of PHG's complaints during the Arbitration case that were ignored then as they should be now. I have bent over backwards to help PHG edit productively including starting a DRV for him on the article in question for him while he was blocked -- I had sincerely hoped he could stick there and edit it in a way to show that he was going to move on and instead, the first time he has no interaction with Elonka in several days, we get this plastered everywhere.

I can't for the life of my figure out why he's become so fixated on Elonka. For instance, the case where he "recreated" a deleted page with a link to the deleted material -- I was the one who found and re-deleted it -- Elonka hadn't a thing to do with the case; yet every time it comes up, he blames Elonka. No matter how many people have tried to talk to him about that particular situation, he honestly seems to think that he was right and that I was wrong to delete it.

Obviously, PHG doesn't get it. Once he makes up his mind on an issue, he seems to be incapable of accepting any feedback or other viewpoints on the issue. Combine that with misguided editors with a cause like Abd and Dreamguy actually encouraging PHG's behavior and you're looking at a continuation of all the same problems with no end in sight. I'm honestly out of ideas on how to get PHG on track -- he refuses to go work in any of the other areas in Wikipedia that have interested him before, he refuses to be civil and calm, he refuses to accept any consensus he doesn't agree with and he refuses to stop these tirades against Elonka -- I'd be interested to hear if there are any suggestions other than blocking him any time he behaves in this manner. Shell   babelfish 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Abd's remarks: I can only assume that Abd hasn't done much work in the area or researched the subject he's discussing. There are many scholarly works available that could be used for the article that don't require searching a rare book store. Shell   babelfish 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the proposal being voted on: And/or?? Is this suppose to mean something along the lines of PHG chooses a mentor or has to use all English readily available sources? At what point would an "and" occur? Shell   babelfish 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Abd
I became aware of this situation through the MfD mentioned above by Daniel. I noted there that the ArbComm decision in the primary case was apparently being misrepresented, in the nomination by Kafka Liz and in the first statement by Elonka, and I felt that this was important enough to warrant flagging it above the comments. This began a minor edit war, terminated when User:Fredrick day, shortly to be blocked, reverted my compromise language with a grossly uncivil comment, then reverted himself. Other editors then allowed the brief warning to remain. This misrepresentation is at the core of this dispute, in my opinion. The Committee stated that it continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, and it did not accuse him of actual "falsification" of sources. What we see in the complaint above is an assumption that everything from PHG must be examined with a jaundiced eye. That is, in fact, blatant AGF failure, contrary to policy, and itself sanctionable.

What I would urge ArbComm to do, here, is to look at the behavior of all involved (including myself) and notice and respond to policy failures, beginning with AGF. Above, I am accused of impropriety for allegedly encouraging PHG. I seek the guidance of this Committee.--Abd (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional note re comments by Elonka and question from arbitrator FayssalF: The article France-Japan relations (19th century), as might be expected from the subject, uses sources not readily available. We have before us an editor with voluminous contributions, with a few citations found suspect or misrepresented, and he created this article and put it up, a beautiful article on its face. Nothing about the article rings false to me, nor has any alleged fact in it been challenged. The matter of sources is raised in Talk:France-Japan relations (19th century) and the only ground asserted for questioning the sources is the ArbComm decision. I'd recommend reading the article and its talk page. If PHG had been found to have actually falsified sources, the matter would be different, and, indeed, a general edit ban might have been appropriate; but ArbComm pointedly avoided taking that step.

I find it quite disturbing that this article was speedily deleted based on nothing but a claim that it violated ArbComm restrictions, with PHG being blocked, as an additional result, on totally spurious grounds. Notice that Elonka intervenes on PHG's Talk page, on the topic of the article and the block, with a radical misrepresentation of the topic ban.. Further, in this edit, Elonka repeats a disturbing charge: That PHG is "continuing to argue at multiple article talkpages, in defiance of consensus." Consensus arises as a result of discussion and, yes, argument. If argument "against consensus" is not permitted, any consensus that appears is incomplete and biased, a rigid consensus is a fake consensus. If the argument is civil, but, say, stubborn, it may simply be ignored. It's a Talk page. My conclusion is that, while the editors in question doubtless believe that they are serving and protecting the project, the effect of their efforts with PHG is currently disruption and harassment and should cease. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka
Regarding PHG's copy/paste here of what he's already posted at ANI and WP:AE, I point to what's already been said in the ANI thread. As for new comments:

PHG runs hot and cold. Not all his work is bad. But even with the good work, sometimes it's hard to tell which it is, because though he writes well and uses lots of footnotes, he often still creates "bad" articles that are full of original research, violate WP:UNDUE, and sometimes use bad sources which promote fringe theories.

I also see PHG's behavior as an extreme example of a larger problem on Wikipedia. The culture here has a soft spot for article creators, or indeed any longterm editor who has a history of good contributions mixed in with the bad, such that the community tolerates disruptive behavior for far longer than I think is wise. As a visual analogy, I equate one of these editors to a tank that rumbles over the countryside, creating a swath of destruction. Yes, a few new flowers (articles) that might not have otherwise been there as soon, do grow in its wake. But to see them, requires ignoring the rest of the tank's carnage, dealing with multiple weeds that have been planted at the same time as the flowers, and attending to the injuries of other "gardeners" that were wounded during the tank's passage.

So, to reduce this collateral damage, I would like to suggest an amendment of my own. One of PHG's tactics is that as he gets challenged, he uses increasingly obscure sources. I have spent literally dozens of hours in libraries, just to research PHG's claims. Some sources were not available locally, or even via interlibrary loan. When I recently visited Washington DC, I spent many hours in the Library of Congress, just to get my hands on some of the more obscure books that PHG uses. I have also often found myself up against language barriers, as I have had to work with text in Latin, French, German, Italian, Hebrew, Arabic, and at one point I even tracked down editors from the Armenian WikiProject to translate text from Medieval Armenian. Even now, PHG is citing works that are in a combination of French and Japanese, and to make things even more  complicated, they appear to be non-standard works which are not available in any American library. When I pointed this out, PHG suggested going to a rare book website to purchase them (at a cost of over $100 / book!).

I still think that PHG should be permanently removed from Wikipedia. But, if the community still doesn't have enough stamina for that, I would at least like to see the following amendment:

--Elonka 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I can give a great deal more evidence about other problematic behavior by PHG since the ArbCom case has closed, such as creating articles which violate WP:UNDUE, and where he has been including inappropriate sources (of those that I am even able to check).  He also appears to be linking to other articles, which, though they may seem to be reinforcing the information that is in PHG's new articles, as I'm digging deeper, I'm finding out that PHG created the older articles in the first place.  Some go back to 2005, are completely unsourced, and follow this pattern of linking to other unsourced information which PHG had already planted.  It's a bit complex to try and explain here in a short statement, but if the arbs want, I can pull this together on a subpage or something for review. --Elonka 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment, from Elonka
''PHG is placed on an all-topic source restriction. He must use only reliable English-language sources, which are either easily available online, or commonly available in major libraries (as can be seen at Worldcat). For other sources, PHG may make suggestions on article talkpages. If consensus can be achieved, per article, that a source is appropriate to use, PHG may then proceed. But even with English-language sources, if any editor expresses a concern with one of PHG's sources, he must cease using it until talkpage consensus can be achieved on its suitability.''

Statement by uninvolved User:Ned Scott
I apologies if this seems inappropriate, but I felt I needed to comment here. I would like to echo some of the above comments, that Elonka has a tendency to exaggerate things. PHG seems to be trying to work within his limits, and in a way that is acceptable to the community, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's not perfect. It's one thing to say "Hey, PHG, you're in that grey area again, so be careful" and another to exasperate the situation.

In other words, there may be issues here, but there may also be a lot of undue weight. Unfortunately, as a community, we're quick to jump on the back of those who struggle with issues, even when that's not a good way to help the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Slp1
I am disturbed by the way PHG wrote Christian Polak, bio of the author of many of the sources that he has been using in France-Japan relations (19th century). In creating this article today, PHG makes M. Polak look like a career historian, when M. Polak is in fact a business consultant who does historical research "in parallel to his professional activities" (translation from the French). (see page 9, sorry about the font). M. Polak's business career is entirely absent from PHG's version of the article, despite the fact that the information was available in the sources he himself used to write the article, as well as simple google searches. I gather that this pattern of selective quoting of material to make a point is one that has been critiqued in the past. --Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Srnec
I have three comments and two suggested amendments to the ArbCom decisions. Comments: Proposed amendments: Srnec (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I dispute Elonka's rationale for banning PHG. I don't thinking remove an editor with a generally civil record and numerous good contributions is best considering the number of editors who purposefully stir things up, are constantly uncivil, and who make next to no article-space edits and are still part of the project.
 * 2) In light of the numerous allegations of it, I should say that I think "incivility" a bad reason for serious action unless it is extremely abusive, which PHG's has not been. He has barely even been uncivil by the standards of some other editors who don't even have sanctions against them. Whenever we concentrate on incivility we are ourselves in danger of falling out of WP:NPA: since we are not concentrating on content but on contributors.
 * 3) PHG has demonstrated a problem specificalloy with WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, and WP:RELIABLE (I wouldn't say either WP:NOR or WP:SYN). 1. He supports representing all opinions found in sources that meet Wikipedia's (low) standards. Contrary to his beliefs, this is not the crux of the NPOV policy. 2. He has shown a marked dislike for any major changes to text he writes. He creates articles in obscure topics perhaps because he knows he can de facto "own" them (N.B. pure speculation). 3. He doesn't seem to realise that not all sources are reliable nor are even all statements in reliable sources reliable. A trained historian would not make the mistakes he makes because he would read texts critically. 4. PHG copiously sources his text and I have not encountered major OR issues arisen except out of accident. 5. He has synthesised material (perhaps unknowingly), but he has not really objected to fixing this, in my opinion.
 * 1) Elonka's amendation is wise (considering English-language to include any work with an English translation available). So long as there are all-pervasive source concerns with PHG's work, he should be forced to stick to more accessible sources, per WP:V. This should not apply to talk pages (where he can present his obscurely-sourced material for discussion, since obscure sources can be very good ones) or user subpages (where he can work on his obscure material, but where right is reserved to delete if the sources are determined to be wanting).
 * 2) PHG should not be banned for incivility unless "incivility" is more precisely defined. Same for "ancient and medieval history": put down strict guidelines so we have no more of this damned grey area, which has led to abusive and unnecessary blocking.

Statement by lurker User:John J. Bulten
Amend the decision to state specifically ArbCom's view of the evidence, as this will guide the two chief combatants, as well as admins and community at large, as to what constitutes undue representation of its decision. I note mediation was closed due to "Participants' [plural] unwillingness to proceed with the mediation in good faith", and I note in arbitration these two each accused the other of personal attacks, edit warring, and unfair presentation of viewpoints (not always under those heads). As a first-year editor, I am still learning what WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:NPOV mean, and after much consideration I am still unable to discern from those pages why ArbCom judicially endorsed one party's accusations and made little to no mention of the other's. The ruling briefly characterizes one party's edits wholly in terms of reference to the other party's characterization, and alludes to ArbCom's merely "confirm"ing allegations of misleading use of sources. In short, the ruling permits one to infer ArbCom found all arguments on one side to be persuasive, and none on the other side, which would seem to reflect poorly on ArbCom's impartiality and not to account for the mediator's finding of bilateral unwillingness. In its generic reply I fail to understand independently why any particular argument proposed by either side is valid or not. It would be very helpful to us newcomers to see a list of, say, three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of valid allegations in each category of behavior (attacks, edit war, NPOV) as endorsed by five arbiters, along with three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of allegations in each category which fail to rise to the level of attacks, edit war, or NPOV. For instance, I failed to discern any evidences which unequivocally rose to blatant misrepresentation, complete nonsupport, and total misuse as requested. I believe this specificity not only would be eminently appropriate for ArbCom to publish, but also would greatly clarify to us how evidences differed one from another and would provide clear guidance to both parties as to how enforcement should proceed. Perhaps I am making an overture uncharitable to ArbCom's methodology, in which case I apologize and await being pointed to the proper means for handling the concerns I make obvious in this paragraph. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Found an excellent, balanced example of exactly what I mean (though I have not noted any such behavior from ScienceApologist personally). While I have your attention, could you also tell me if other users beside the presenter are restricted to 500 words? Could be significant, and I didn't see that policy. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) It appears I have leave to suggest the following first second draft built from WP:AP, though bland: This seems responsive to the initial request. The alternative requests and proposals seem a strange interpretation of the extant remedy that PHG is encouraged to contribute to mainspace, and I repeat my call for ArbCom to provide clear characterization of its decision and this particular remedy. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC) With many thanks to FloNight, I have refactored the third point of my amendment to provide the specificity which I think any motions in this particular case will need. JJB 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed amendment
 * XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior. (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs) Repeated six times, where "Elonka" and "PHG" are each cross-combined with "personal attacks", "edit warring", and "pushing point of view". The "has not" cases would include 3 or 4 diffs presented formerly as evidence but which did not rise to the level of the disruptive behavior.
 * User Elonka is reminded of the community's limitation against conduct unbecoming to admins, particularly attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, failure to communicate, and gross breach of trust. (responsive to FayssalF)
 * User PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. During the balance of PHG's one-year editing restriction, any of his mainspace edits not drawn from widely available English-language sources, as indicated by WorldCat.org, should be preceded by talkpage posting of the source in its context, and are subject to collaborative consensus as described in present remedy 4. (responsive to FloNight)

Statement by User:Nsk92
I have become aware of this case only recently, while participating in an AfD discussion, currently still ongoing, for the article Christian Polak that PHG created. I will say for the record that I have never before crossed paths with PHG, was not involved in and was not aware of the ArbCom case regarding PHG and, even of this moment, am not familiar with the details of this case (nor do I want to learn about them). I have zero interest in the history of Franco-Japanese or Franco-Mongol relations and only participated in the AfD discussion because it was listed in WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. The AfD discussion Articles for deletion/Christian Polak had some tense moments but proceeded relatively peacefully for a while. However, it then had a flare-up of high drama and by now this AfD has become a rather unpleasant place and I plan to stay away from it. The immediate precursor to this flare-up was an edit by PHG to Christian Polak. This edit introduced a statement that Pollak was awared Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989. If true, this would certainly have established the subject's notability. However, the reference given by PHG was a site in Japanese. It turned out that PHG mistranslated the content of that site and it was eventually confirmed that Polak received a lesser civil award, Ordre national du Mérite. When the mistake was pointed out by other users, PHG quickly corrected the wrong info. PHG was reported to AE by User:Jehochman, quickly blocked by User:Coren and quickly unblocked by User:El_C (see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak).

Several comments regarding this episode. Certainly, under normal circumstances, a mistake like that made by PHG in this case would not have warranted a block. However, it appears that in this particular case the editor, PHG, was on probation and was warned to be particularly careful with sources. I do not have an opinion regarding whether this block was justified, but what happened here certainly gives one pause, especially since PHG knew that this was a controversial AfD and that he had to be particularly diligent with his edits. I must say that, providing a Japanese website, without giving translation, as a source for a major French governmental award, strikes me as distinctly imprudent, even for an editor who was not on an ArbCom probation for problematic sourcing.

PHG does have his passionate defenders, such as User:John J. Bulten. I am somewhat sympathetic to their arguments that PHG was under a lot of pressure to quickly provide some evidence of notability for Polak since an AfD was filed so quickly after the article was created. But it does not really justify playing with matches next to a gas tank. The article should have been prepared carefully in a Sandbox first, and many of the current problems might have been avoided.

I must say, however, that I am less than positively impressed by the involvement of some of the PHG's prior opponents in this particular AfD. I think that Jehochman jumped the gun with his AE enforcement request and that Elonka's comments in the AfD did not particularly help to keep the temperature down.

I don't know what all of this means for this ArbCom case but I hope that we can avoid having AfDs degenerate into these kinds of battles in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jumped the gun? I have been waiting patiently since September 2007 for somebody to stop the steady flow of unverifiable, or verification failing material, by PHG into Wikipedia. Forgive me for being hasty, but I have already waited a very long time. Jehochman Talk 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Update In the AE discussion of this case, Jehochman suggested mandatory mentorship for PHG. I support this proposal. I don't want to cross-post here, so please see my more detailed comments at AE discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova
I received a request to comment on a specific side discussion without being notified that the case itself was under a review request. This has just now come to my attention. The stricture on Medieval history needs revision because the designation is basically a European era and does not graft well onto east Asian topics. Apparently PHG is fluent in Japanese. Durova Charge! 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the motion. Durova  Charge! 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ElC
I could support a mechanism, such as binding mentorship, that would be set up to better ensure the extended restrictions work. But I do not feel that it makes sense to block PHG indefinitely until it's up and running. Also, Elonka needs to find something else to do if she continues to be so hostile to anyone who isn't in full agreement with her. Her "request" earlier today to that I "think hard about whether or not you feel that you are genuinely suited to keep on being an administrator" doesn't inspire confidence. Thank you. El_C 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there were mentorship, I would support removal of the topic restrictions, as they would no longer be needed. It is clear to me that the problem is related to sourcing methodology, not any particular topics. Jehochman Talk 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly; that's why I didn't use the word "topic" above. It does increasingly appear to be more of a universal methodological issue, than an historiographical one (as we first thought). I think in that event, the (binding) mentorship would, in effect, be the restrictions. El_C 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This notwithstanding his tendency to overemphasize on Franco-*Asiatic connectedness (in general). El_C 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I known best about, and am best positionned to contribute. I also wrote a lot about British people or Americans in Japan though (William Adams (sailor), Anglo-Japanese relations, Japan-United States relations), but that's less of my area. Best regards :) PHG (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant as an historiographical leaning, though maybe I could have phrased it more precisely. El_C 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Recuse also. Anthøny  12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked PHG to shorten his statement, at 752 words, it's well past the guideline. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "and/or" ruling has passed. I have asked the arbs a question about implementation and will take care of the whole clarification request when I have an answer. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm minded to proposed an extension to our ruling to include everything, not just articles, given the sub-page issue (which goes clearly against the spirit of the ruling, as AGK notes). James F. (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to wait for user:Elonka's statement before commenting. Has anyone verified the sources used for France-Japan relations (19th century)? --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  23:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After verifying myself some sources and hearing Elonka's statement I now support James' remedy and remind PHG that a serious encyclopaedia requires serious references - especially when dealing with important subjects. PHG needs to take this essential principle to heart regardless of the fact of being restricted to an area or another and regardless of assuming good faith or not. --   FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will also ask Elonka to let other admins deal with the situation. Her multiple interventions has not been helping this case at all. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support extending our ruling to include other Wikipedia pages, not just articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support James's suggestion that we extend our ruling to include everything since the disruption is not going away. Hopefully, PHG will listen to the concerns expressed by the Committee that he needs to change his approach. As FayssalF says, encyclopedia content needs to have verifiable reliable sources. Occasional use of a rare source is not a big problem, but regularly relying on sources that most members of the Community can not access is problem especially when there are more than a few disputes about the content. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

 * PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. For the next year:
 * PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
 * and/or
 * PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source or citation by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.


 * Support:
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Ability for others to check (easily if possible) is always important; more so if there are concerns. Added last clause to 2nd option, without which it would not actually do much since "use a mentor to assist" alone is too vague.
 * Note that there are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deskana (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for review: Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * (instigator)
 * notified:

Statement by Jehochman
We have a big problem in that PHG's convincing looking citations can fool a majority of good faith editors. In attempting to clean up the article Buddhism and Christianity that I found listed at the fringe theory noticeboard, I spotted a familiar a pattern of original research, original maps that have no sources, and copyright violations in the form of book cover uploads. Sure enough, I found PHG had heavily edited the article. This is exactly the same pattern as we saw before.

Regrettably, PHG's mentorship with has ended. Coren appears to have been inactive since May 8, 2008. The mess of damaged articles remains. Attempts to fix this mess meet with resistance because editors are unaware of the problems. I have been asked to prove, yet again, that sources have been misrepresented. Please excuse me for not having 8 hours to drive to a research library, find an obscure book, and go through the article line by line to yet again demonstrate the same problem that was demonstrated at arbitration.

See Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Christianity, in particular, this edit:. I am at a loss for how to solve these problems. Could the Committee please review this situation and provide guidance. Perhaps an additional remedy is needed to expedite clean up of the messes. Ideally, we need the ability to blank, revert, or delete articles to a state that is untainted by misrepresented sources. It is neither efficient nor scalable to have to go through all the same arguments as we faced at arbitration for each instance of the problem. By now, there should be a presumption that PHG's information on East-West cultural connections from the time period prior to arbitration is not reliable. Additionally, I think PHG needs to stand aside and not obstruct clean up efforts in any way. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Kendrick7: Click Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance to see all the time that has thus far been invested in dispute resolution.  Jehochman Talk 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The pattern in this article is very obvious, given my close attention to the prior case. Regrettably, uninvolved editors like yourself generally don't see the problems on quick inspection.  This is the great danger of subtle misrepresentation and insertion of original research.  As you point out, PHG has not touched the article for a long time, but it has not been fixed yet because the damage is not obvious.  I really do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion on each and every tainted article while attempting to fix it.  There has to be a better way. Jehochman Talk 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about stubbing the article, but as you can see from the AfD discussion, blanking and starting from scratch has significant opposition. I do not think changing the forum of discussion from AfD to the article talk page would have helped in any way.  At least AfD helps bring in some fresh points of view. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a hard problem, which is why I have come here for advice. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, please stop with the straw man logical fallacy. I have not suggested banning PHG here. Could you look a bit more closely at some of PHG's recent contribution. Actually go get the source and look at it. For just one example, Siege of Bangkok, mentioned by PHG below. I have been told by somebody who speaks French that one of PHG's sources is a book by Michael Smithies of translations of first hand accounts by French soldiers and missionaries. Book review This bears checking. It looks a lot like PHG is sill using Wikipedia to publish original research. The past ruling may be insufficient to solve the problem. I'd like to see mandatory mentorship for PHG's editing in all areas of the encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for suggesting places to list articles for cleanup, and I like Shell Kinney's idea that PHG needs to find a new mentor. This should be mandatory, and include all editing. The mentor needs to speak French. Jehochman Talk 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a few articles to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Should we move that list to a dedicated page, such as Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Checklist? The list is associated with the arbitration case, and may include things that are not closely related to Franks and Mongols. 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for temporary restriction
Per Mathsci's report below, I request PHG to be blocked until a mentor is appointed. It is not fair to those cleaning up his messes in article space to allow this pattern of editing to continue without any sort of restraint. PHG is using up a huge amount of volunteer time. Jehochman Talk 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:PHG
I think I contributed only about 15% of this article Christianity and Buddhism, most of my contribution being historical background (Indo-Greeks etc...) and photographs. My last contribution gets back to August 30, 2007, about a year ago. Just look at the state and length of the article, even before I contributed anything. This is old stuff, and I will be glad to discuss if there are any specific issues to be addressed. We're all here to contribute content as best as we can. For some of my latest contributions, please see France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok, which I am very proud to contribute. Cheers. PHG (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My articles France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok do use as one of their sources the very interesting Michael Smithies' Three Military Accounts of the 1688 revolution in Siam ISBN 9745240052. The book is organized as follows: a Preface and General Introduction by Michael Smithies, an English translation of the account published by General Desfarges with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of the account by de la Touche with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of an account by Vollant des Verquains with Preface by Smithies, a Conclusion and Chronology by Michael Smithies. Altogether, Smithies gives a rather precise account of the events related to the Siamese revolution over the 40 or so pages which he personnally authors. For some details, I also sometimes relied on the translations themselves. As far as I know, this is accepted by Wikipedia, provided that the primary accounts have been published by a reliable secondary source, and that the primary sources are used for purposed of factual documentation, which is the case here (see No original research). Cheers. PHG (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kenrick7
Dispute resolution? -- Kendrick7talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but PHG hasn't edited that article since 30 August 2007, and that ArbCom case came into effect in March of this year. The case explicitly doesn't forbid him from commenting on Talk page, so I'm sure commenting on AfD's is fair game. -- Kendrick7talk 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You trotted him out as a bogey-man and cited his having edited the article as a reason for deleting the article. It's a stretch of the F-Ma case to declare that everything he ever touched is permanently sullied, and he was right to call you out on it. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you could always just de-ref the article, i.e. yank all the references (not added in the past 11 months) and put them on the article talk page, and then replace them all with tags, or information that is especially suspect with . Stick a big  tag up top, and just let the article evolve from there. -- Kendrick7talk 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the article was pretty far along before (apparently) PHG ever got there. I don't see how undoing the labors of dozens of editors over several years solves anything. There's no "quick fix." -- Kendrick7talk 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
I think this might be solvable by having PHG choose a new mentor, since Coren does not appear to be performing that duty any longer. Shell   babelfish 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka makes a good suggestion - we already had a de facto central area where we were listing articles to review and I'm sure no one would mind if Jehochman has other articles he wants to add to the list. Shell    babelfish 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka
I'm not entirely understanding why this is at ArbCom again. The article that Jehochman is talking about, has not been edited by PHG in several months. So what exactly is it that Jehochman wants the arbitrators to do? Ban PHG for something he's not doing anymore? As near as I can tell, ever since the last clarification a few months ago, PHG has been doing a very good job at abiding by his sanctions. He is still creating articles at a rapid rate, but he is staying out of the medieval topic area, has not been engaging in excessive debate at talkpages, and appears (last I checked) to be sticking to reliable English-language sources. I do agree with Shell Kinney that since PHG's old mentor appears to be inactive, that it would be wise to choose a new mentor (I recommend Shell, if PHG would accept). As for cleanup, I recommend that anything new that is found, that requires cleanup from PHG's past efforts, be added to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. We are still working our way through the dozens of other PHG-edited articles with NPOV problems, so it couldn't hurt to add a few more, perhaps in a section like, "Additional articles for review", to make it clear that these may be in slightly different topic areas. At least that will provide a depository where identified articles can be clearly listed as still needing review, and will help identify the scope of the problem. --Elonka 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
I am adding these comments at the request of Jehochman, following a private communication. Having looked at some of PHG's recent edits to articles connected with the Siege of Bangkok and Siamese revolution (1688), there do still appear to be problems with his edits. He appears to have used as his principal source translations of primary documents, reports by french soldiers present at the time, recently translated from French by Michael Smithies. A review of this translation makes it clear that it requires the skills of a professional historian to interpret these first-hand accounts, plagued by rivalries and jealousies between different French factions. Other sources are not mentioned, e.g. Hutchinson's classic Revolution in Siam and the very recent Witness to a Revolution: Siam 1688, both translations of contemporary accounts. So apparently most of the article seems to be derived from primary sources and not a secondary text by a professional historian. The Thailand article in Distant Lands and Diverse Continents: The French Experience in Aisa, 1600-1700 by Ronald S. Love gives more detailed references, including a 40 page paper from 1935 by Hutchinson in the Journal of the Siam Society and Thailand: a short history by David K. Wyatt (117-118). Detailed secondary sources (such as the detailed account of Hutchinson) have not been identified by PHG. I hope these comments are useful. Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * I've asked FloNight (on her talk page) about this issue's status since PHG seems to have ignored the one offer of mentoring by Angus (see PHG's talk). — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Per Elonka. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Along with the emerging consensus here, all we need to do is to find a volunteer to replace Coren as PHG's mentor. Are there any volunteers? Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting a new mentor asp seems to be the obvious solution. And in the future, PHG needs to let the Committee know if his mentor stops working with him. In the future, not letting us know might result in loss of editing privileges or other editing restrictions. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see one offer to act as a mentor on User:PHG's talk page. Will be a good idea to get several people to help, since this is an ongoing situation. Any one else that is interested can contact me on my talk page, email the arbcom mailing list or me, or leave a message on PHG's talk page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I followed up with PHG and Angusmclellan., and brought the Committee up to date on ArbCom mailing list today. Will try to get the mentoring arrangement finalized in the next few days. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG has agreed on Angusmclellan as a new mentor. I notified the rest of the Committee and there were no objections. So let's go forward with the mentoring arrangement for now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. James F. (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Mathsci's comments are telling. They suggest an ongoing problem. Yes a new mentor &mdash; but PHG must be made to understand and follow our policy with regard to original research. Paul August &#9742; 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report on use of sources
As noted in the present request for clarification, arbitrators examined closely the use of sources by the parties in this dispute. In summary we found PHG to be honest with sources to the limited extent that cited material is in reliable sources, and when a direct quote is given, it is indeed to be found in the source in the place mentioned. However, material is taken out of context, and frequently more weight is put on an imprecise wording than it will reasonably bear. The following is a summary of the examination of sources undertaken. Some of the more important sources were available to every member of the committee.


 * An extensive check found not a single source which could support the contention of "a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation". Taken together the sources are clear that the Mongols and Franks found themselves coincidentally both in the Middle East and both opposing the muslims, and so sometimes their objectives happened to coincide. However, attempts by the Mongols to form something more formal were rebuffed.


 * In the citation of Peter Jackson's "The Mongols and the West" we examined the contention that it contains a chapter about the Mongols as allies. It was noted that individual citations from within the chapter were scarce. On examination the chapter was found to tell the story of how Mongol attempts to form an alliance did not meet with success. It was confirmed that when Jackson reported that the Mongols liberated Jerusalem, this was as one among a list of false rumours spread at the time.


 * Attention was drawn to the citation in Jackson of the mediaeval British monk Matthew Paris claiming Bohemond V was a tributary to the Mongols in 1246. However Jackson's view of Matthew Paris is given on page 58 where he describes Matthew Paris as "a problematic source in view of the author's tendency to insert material of his own fashioning".


 * It was then noted that the claim that Bohemond VI may have ridden into Damascus with the Mongols is followed by Jackson rubbishing the rumour that Bohemond converted the Great Mosque in Damascus into a church, and that the same source is given for both assertions. It was considered that the word "may" was particularly important.


 * Sylvia Schein's "Gesta Dei per Mongolos" has been cited many times by participants in this dispute. The subtitle of the article is "The genesis of a non-event", the non-event in question being the recovery of the Holy Land by Mongols and its subsequent handing over to the Christians. We considered that citation of Schein on matters of detailed history ought not to disguise a text concentrating on rebutting its underlying thesis that no extensive collaboration between Mongols and Christians took place and certainly no alliance.


 * We considered the claim that Amin Maalouf is "extensive and specific on the alliance". Although arbitrators looked at a different translation (published by Al Saqi Books, 1984) so the page numbers were different, the relevant quotes were located.


 * We found that the opinion that Armenian Franks "sided with the Mongols" leaves out Maalouf's following opinion which was translated as follows: "But the prevalent impression in both East and West was that the Mongol campaign was a sort of holy war against Islam, a pendant to the Frankish expeditions". We considered the use of 'pendant' intriguing, possibly an example of mistranslation or possibly making the French preposition 'pendant' into a noun. If it was the latter then Maalouf's opinion would seem to be that the Mongols were having a go at the muslims during the same time that the Franks were there.


 * We noted accurate later references in Maalouf referring to Frankish rulers as being "allies" of Mongols, although a fuller reading supports the view that there was nothing formal in it. Our attention was drawn to the quotation that says the Hospitallers were "going as far as fighting at [the Mongols'] side", which we considered as implying that such a thing had never, or rarely, happened before.


 * A check of Zoe Oldenbourg's "The Crusades" to find the reference to "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun" in 1280 discovered it to be a single entry in a timeline at the very end of a very long book. There was no mention in the text amplifying or explaining the reference, given that the focus of the book is before 1280.


 * It was noted that Peter Edbury, after mentioning an alliance and giving an example, followed this mention by stating "but there was no effective co-operation between Mongols and Christians". We considered that when Edbury says the Mongol attack coincided with Edward I's presence, the context of the book shows that the word "coincidence" is used in the sense of 'accidentally happening at the same time' rather than a deliberate choice.


 * In addition to checking sources cited, some other books not cited were checked to see if they helped shed light on the subject. J.J. Saunders' "Aspects of the Crusades" (University of Canterbury, 1962) had a chapter entitled "The Franks and the Mongols" which apppeared particularly relevant. The opening sentence of the chapter reads: "In the last years of Frankish Outremer the Christians were unexpectedly presented with a potential ally of enormous strength, and had the two joined forces, Islam might have been annihilated." The thrust of the chapter is along exactly the lines foreshadowed in its opening. At the end Saunders usefully summarises René Grousset. The summary is that Grousset reproves the Franks for not forming an alliance with the Mongols.

Arbitrators found this work provided a useful background before considering the user conduct issues raised by the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Response by PHG
Thank you so much for taking the time to report for the first time the findings of the Arbcom regarding sources for this case. I am hugely releaved that you confirm that my references have always proved to be exact. I indeed never ever make up references (putting appart the occasional mistake, probably less than 1 in a 100). The central issue seems to be about my interpretation of sources (... or possibly portrayals of my interpretations). I would like to make a few comments on your analysis.

1) You claim that "not a single source which could support the contention of "a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation"". This is, respectfully, untrue. Many authors talk about the occurence of an alliance, with military cooperation, lasting years at a time, although they generally differ about its nature and timing.
 * Alain Demurger, in the 2002 Jacques de Molay biography The Last Templar, refers to it as the "Mongol alliance", which came to fruition through such events as the 1300 combined offensives between the Templars and the Mongols.(Demurger, p.147 "This expedition sealed by a concrete act the Mongol alliance"), "The strategy of the Mongol alliance in action(Demurger p.145) "De Molay led the fight for the reconquest of Jerusalem by relying on an alliance with the Mongols", back cover)
 * René Grousset L'épopée des Croisades: "Edward I renewed the precious Mongol Alliance" (in "L'épopée des Croisades", p.301), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example" (p.686)
 * Jean Richard in Histoire des Croisades, has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s ("The sustained attacks of Baibars (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in Histoire des Croisades, p.453.) and continue on-and-off until it was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322 ("In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in Histoire des Croisades, p.468). He concludes on the many missed opportunities the alliance offered: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", 1996, Jean Richard, p.469
 * Reuven Amitai-Preiss in Mongols and Mamluks writes that "Under Bohemond VI, the northern Franks maintained their unequivocal pro-Mongol alliance after 'Ayn Jālūt" (p.54). She also writes about the "Mongol-Frankish rapprochement" (Mamluk perceptions of the Mongol-Frankish rapprochement, MHR 7 (1992), p.50-65)
 * Dr. Martin Sicker, in The Islamic World Ascendancy (p.113): "Ket-Buqa and Bohemond VI fully appreciated the mutual advantages of the Frank-Mongol alliance".
 * Jean-Paul Roux, in Histoire de l'Empire Mongol ISBN 2213031649, has a chapter on the "Frank alliance" with the Mongols. He describes the continuation of this alliance until the time of Oljeitu: "The Occident was reassured that the Mongol alliance had not ceased with the conversion of the Khans to Islam. However, this alliance could not have ceased. The Mamelouks, through their repeated military actions, were becoming a strong enough danger to force Iran to maintain relations with Europe.", p.437
 * Claude Mutafian in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie describes "the Mongol alliance" entered into by the king of Armenia and the Franks of Antioch ("the King of Armenia decided to engage into the Mongol alliance, an intelligence that the Latin barons lacked, except for Antioch"), and "the Franco-Mongol collaboration" (Mutafian, p.55)
 * Zoe Oldenbourg in The Crusades mentions the 1280 "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". (Oldenbourg, "The Crusades", p.620)
 * Jonathan Riley-Smith mentions in his Atlas of the Crusades that in 1285 the Hospitallers of the north agreed to ally to the Mongols.("En 1285, Qalawun, nouveau sultan mamelouk, reprend l'offensive, qu'il dirige contre les Hospitaliers du nord, qui s'etaient montres prets a s'allier aux Mongols", Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas des Croisades", p.114) He also describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally", in History of the Crusades, p.136
 * Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the Mongol alliance.
 * Claude Lebedel in Les Croisades describes the alliance of the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli with the Mongols: (in 1260) "the Frank barons refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the Armenians and the Prince of Antioch and Tripoli".
 * Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267), “..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281."
 * Patrick Huchet in Les Templiers, une fabuleuse epopee relates that "Jacques de Molay, elected Master in 1292, associated himself with the Mongols to set up military operations on the island of Ruad (near Tortose)."'''
 * E. L. Skip Knox, Boise State University, in The Fall of Outremer online: "Some of the Crusader States wanted to form an alliance with the Mongols, while others weren't so sure. The allure of destroying Egypt was great, but the Mongols were pretty scary allies. In the end, Armenia and Antioch joined, along with the Templars and Hospitallers." also here: "A double army marched down from the north and east, crossing the Euphrates in 1281. Qalavun marched north and they met near Homs on 30 October. Once again, Christians fought alongside the Mongols (the Hospitallers and the Armenians this time)".

2) You further state that the Mongols and Franks encounters were only "coincidental". The reality is that the Franks and the Mongols actually exchanged letters of agreement to cooperate, and then effectively cooperated on the field, although in limited and rather ineffective ways.

3) Peter Jackson's "The Mongols and the West". I never claimed that Peter Jackson was an all-out proponent of the Mongol alliance. Here is what I wrote, and I think it is quite exact: "Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the Mongol alliance." Peter Jackson indeed mentions several cases of Franco-Mongol cooperation (the participation of the Hospitallers of Marqab in the Mongol campaign of 1280, p.168, the 800 Genoese who built ships for the Il-Khanate in Bagdad, p.169, the expedition of 1300: "more serious was the expedition led in 1300, in response to another appeal by Ghazan", p.171 etc...). I agree the phrase about Jerusalem is ambiguous "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castagate Latin princes", but it can honestly be taken both ways. The capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 is also considered as fact by many authors (this is not just "a false rumor"): see Mongol raids into Palestine for references.

4) Matthew Paris: I hadn't noticed that Jackson considered him as a problematic source in page 58. Jackson nonetheless quotes Matthew for the Bohemond VI bit, so I guess he still gives some credence to it, and I don't think you can criticize me for mentioning the quote. Jackson is actually unambiguous about Bohemond VI's cooperation with the Mongols: "Prince Bohemond VI, perhaps under the influence of his father-in-law King Hetum of Lesser Armenia, waited upon Hulegu in person and wass allowed to reach a settlement that covered his country of Tropoli as well. He participated in the Mongol campaign against Balabakk, which he hoped to obtain from Hulegu", p.117. "His conciliatory attitude towards the Mongols had incurred a ban of excomunication by the Papal legate Thomas Agni di Lentino.", p.117.

5) "May have ridden into Damascus with the Mongol army": this is what I quoted and referenced, no more no less. The fact that "Jackson rubbished the rumour that Bohemond converted the Great Mosque in Damascus into a church" is a different fact. Nothing indicate that the source is common to these two assertions: they are separated by a ";", and the only thing that Jackson declares apocryphal is the story of the church.

6) Sylvia Schein: she does have an article entitled "The genesis of a non-event", but the "non-event" refers to the capture of Jerusalem and the rumors about it in the West. She nonetheless writes about the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance: "They (the Templars, Hospitallers and crusaders of Cyprus) sailed to the island of Ruad, and, from that base, captured Tortosa, but retired a few days later when their allies (the Mongols) did not appear.", p.811. Schein even states in her 1991 book that "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus". Schein, 1991, p. 163. Schein, Sylvia (1991). Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land. Clarendon. ISBN 0198221657

7) Amin Maalouf . You discuss the meaning of Amin Maalouf's usage of the French word "pendant" and what he really means. The best translation would be "match"/"counterpart"/"parallel", and really has basically nothing to do with a discussion of timing (the adjective "pendant" and the noun "un pendant" have totally different meanings). Here is what Maalouf writes in the original French: "Les Armeniens, en la personne de leur roi Hetoum, prennent fait et cause pour les Mongols, ainsi que le Prince Bohemond. En revanche, les Franj d'acre adoptent une position de neutralite, plutot favorable aux Musulmans. Mais l'impression qui prevaut, aussi bien en Orient qu'en Occident, c'est que la campagne mongole est une sorte de guerre sainte qui fait pendant aux expeditions franques": i.e. "The Armenians, in the person of king Hethoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond. On the contrary, the Franks of Acre took a position of neutrality, rather favourable to the Muslims. But the prevailing fealing in the East and the West was that the Mongol campaign was a sort of Holy War which was a match/counterpart/parallel to the Frankish expeditions." I am sorry to see that your interpretation of the french is mistaken, and even more sorry to see that this can be used as a base for an arbitration.

8) "Rare occurence": I do not dispute, and have never disputed, that the instance of actual Franco-Mongol collaboration have always been few and rather unsuccesfull.

9) Zoe Oldenbourg's "1280 Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". I do not dispute that Zoe Oldenbourg does not further elaborate on the alliance, and that this is a single mention in her book. She nonetheless mentions it in her timeline, and therefore shows she considers the event as an alliance. Whether the mention is short or long, is I think rather irrelevant, as long as we are truthfull to what she says.

10) Here is what Peter Edbury exactly says: he mentions the Franco-Mongol alliance in The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374 (p. 92) and gives as an example that "the Mongol staged an attack to coincide with the Frank offensive during the Crusade of Edward I" Google Books: this does not means at all a coincidence as you claim, this means that the Mongols deliberately organized both offensives to work together. Unfortunately, I am afraid you are the one who misreads and misrepresents the source.

11) I do not dispute your reading of J.J. Saunders' "Aspects of the Crusades" (University of Canterbury, 1962): this is not a source I have been using. You could read Grousset first hand to make an opinion, but he does say that there was an alliance, although it was not pursued far enough by the West ( "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (p521), "Only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance" (p.653) "Edward I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), "Edward I renewed the precious Mongol Alliance" (in "L'épopée des Croisades", p.301), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example" (p.686)).

I thank you for listing the Arbitrator "evidence" that have been relied on in my case, but I am sorry to say that I don't see much incriminating here. If the case of the Arbcom is such a weak one, I think it has to be cancelled. Regards PHG (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of this posting was not to hash out every individual source. I would draw your attention to the fact that the phrase "a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation" came from your full version of the article, and that now to state "that the instance of actual Franco-Mongol collaboration have always been few and rather unsuccesful" is to contradict it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I am sorry, but "A regular alliance, complete with military cooperation, although instances of actual collaboration were rather few and unsuccesful" is I think a totally rational proposition, and this is all I have ever described in the Franco-Mongol alliance. An alliance or a military collaboration do not have to be "intense" or even "successful" to exist nonetheless. PHG (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, we are not re-opening the case. We provided a fuller explanation as a courtesy to you and the other users that wanted to better underatand the issues we had with your use of sources. The best approach going forward is for you to continue to work with your mentor to write high quality articles. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello FloNight. Please understand. Sam has just proven that the Arbcom has actually never properly established the alleged misuse of sources on my part. Most of the cases described above are either mis-interpreted or based on mis-translations. I am not a native English speaker and do not have your powers of argumentation, but should I just stand still and endure such malpractice? It is still time to redress things and repair past wrongdoings. I will not bear any grudge to anybody, as I love the whole idea of Wikipedia much too much for that. Regards PHG (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, in a word, Yes. (Endure it! -- for the time being.) I do not find your discussion, here, of the problems with sources asserted in the ArbComm report, to be offensive, but this isn't the place to resolve that. I will help you with this if you like. It will not be quick. The time may come when you will be vindicated, but that time isn't now, not through the present Appeal, unless some miracle happens. To my mind, the real problem was always civility, style of argument, and personality clashes, though I have not carefully investigated that, it simply seems highly likely. As I noted elsewhere (and you accepted), the filing of this Appeal and the arguments you gave here were impolitic, and learning how to avoid that is probably the main lesson you will derive from this period of restriction, and this will benefit both you and the project. I continue to believe that your work is truly extraordinary, and that the restrictions are damaging, but not seriously so, as long as your relationship with the community is not so disrupted that you withdraw and stop editing. Given that you can continue to create excellent articles, the medieval period's loss is the later period's gain. --Abd (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, you demonstrate again that you use the words "I have proved" (or "disproved" in this case) when all you have done is state your opinion. In both scholarship and on Wikipedia, it is wise to ask that someone other than yourself decide whether or not your statement can be considered "proof". Until your behaviour shows that you understand that, I'm happy that you're working under mentorship. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Alvestand, it is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of facts. Just give me a few solid cases in which I would have misrepresented sources, and I will gladly apologize. Unfortunately, the above "Report on use of sources" mainly consists of obvious misinterpretations and translations mistakes. I am mortified that the Arbcom can base a ruling on such falty and inexact material. Regards PHG (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my view, and I think the view of other editors that look at your work, that your contributions do too much synthesizing and analysis of the original text and it makes it too close to original research. We need for the sources to state facts or opinions in a more direct manner. If you can not find sources that give a detail of information in a concise statement then it most likely does not belong in Wikipedia and is best left out. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you FloNight for this answer. This is already quite different from just slapping me with "misrepresentation of sources" accusations based on a flawed "Report on use of sources" (above) and trying to put me into disrepute through an Arbcom ban. All my references have actually proven to be exact (Sam Blacketer, above), and I can reaffirm that I never misrepresent my sources (should it happen, this would only be accidental). Now I think what you are saying is that I often over-interpret my sources. I don't think this is the case, but I suspect where this opinion could come from. I like to write on little known subjects (I tend to think that being able to go into quite a lot of details on little-known event is one of the beauties of Wikipedia), which are often remote from the Anglo-Saxon world (hence little English literature)... just look at the article I created today Pierre de Milard, this little-known amazing French adventurer in Burma in the 18th century. This means I often have to rely on a multiciplicity of sources which, taken individually, often only have a few lines on the subject. I often have to patch these elements together to obtain the full, detailed, picture. I believe these subject are nonetheless highly encyclopedic and worthy of Wikipedia (France-Japan relations (19th century), Indo-Greek kingdom etc... etc...). I am carefull however not to draw undue conclusions or to synthese this material unduly ("No original research Cs from a documented As and Bs": I basically only put together documented As, Bs and Cs). If there are accusations I would have done undue synthesis, I would like to see proof of it, but I strongly dispute it. In the meantime, it seems fairly obvious from the above that the case against me has been poorly defined and has been based on a multiplicity of falty accusations. In itself, even just the disclosure that the evidence is falty can be the basis of an appeal. All this taken into consideration, I am formally asking the Arbcom to now cancel its ruling against me. I am willing however to continue working with my mentor as it might reassure part of the community, and because I do enjoy and learn from the relationship. Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, I'm not talking about the sources you cite, I'm talking about the way in which you use them. To wit:
 * Sam Blacketer says: "A check of Zoe Oldenbourg's "The Crusades" to find the reference to "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun" in 1280 discovered it to be a single entry in a timeline at the very end of a very long book. There was no mention in the text amplifying or explaining the reference, given that the focus of the book is before 1280."
 * You say: "Zoe Oldenbourg in The Crusades mentions the 1280 "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". (Oldenbourg, "The Crusades", p.620)"
 * Your conclusion, after making similar remarks about Sam's other mentions: "Sam has just proven that the Arbcom has actually never properly established the alleged misuse of sources on my part." (FWIW, Amazon claims that the books has 672 pages. It's not established that you're talking about different pages.)
 * The last is your interpretation. It is obviously not Sam's interpretation. Neither of you can lay claim to knowing the whole truth and its correct interpretation - yet you act as if you do. That is the behaviour that I find reprehensible and irresponsible. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Related AE thread
I have filed a thread requesting an extension of PHG's topic ban, at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Elonka 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)