Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop

Elonka abuses the concept of consensus
Regarding PHG's proposal, I'll state for the record some background that's a bit too detailed for general workshop discussion. Elonka did consult me from time to time during the last half year about her difficulties with PHG. It is my understanding that she did so because she was already aware of the extreme difficulties I had faced with disruptive editors while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article status. Obviously I know something about French Medieval history, and she hoped I might be able to help, but I declined taking an active role because my knowledge of the Crusades and the Mongol Empire is much more limited than on the Hundred Years' War.

If partisanship played any role in my participation at this arbitration case I would be supporting PHG, because for two months running Elonka has been directing a series of unrelated insults at me off-wiki and at about the same time as this case opened I drew the line and demanded an apology. Her response was to compound the offensive behavior so I blocked her chat access. Despite that, within the limits of my involvement and understanding she appears to be correct on the merits of this case, so I have set aside my opinion of her rude conduct in order to express agreement as a Wikipedian. Durova Charge! 03:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth currently unable to edit
Ealdgyth sent me an email to ask that I let everyone know that he is currently unable to edit. While he can still reach Wikipedia and read it, any time he clicks an edit link, the server times out on him. He is working to fix the problem and I have advised him of the email address that can be used to email ArbCom. I also mentioned the secure login in case that might help. If anyone has run in to this before or has any other suggestions, you might want to leave a note at his talk page, which he still reads. Thanks. Shell babelfish 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe Ealdgyth is a she. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Doh! Apologies if that is the case. Shell babelfish 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to retract bias accusation

 * I am afraid this has far more weight than a group of Hollywood-minded critics who cannot see the Mongols otherwise than as a horde of blood-thirsty brutes bent on "abject domination", and will use any kind of accusations and misrepresentations to have their way.
 * Accusations of bigotry are a very serious matter. And playing the race card, as it's known in my culture, is not something to be done lightly.  Too much actual racism exists in the world, and its victims often have a hard time making themselves believed.  PHG, if you wish to make such a serious claim at all, please restrict it to particular individuals and support it with specific diffs.  Otherwise please retract it.  Durova  Charge! 23:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I too would like to know precisely where this accusation is coming from. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: PHG
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * User:PHG (initiator)
 * User:Elonka (notified )
 * User:Jehochman (notified )
 * User:Abd (notified )
 * User:Eupator (notified )
 * User:Angusmclellan (notified )

Statement by PHG
I, User:PHG, would like to respectfully ask the Comity to lift the sanctions I have been submitted to since March 2008, on the basis of (1) Good conduct during time served (entering the 6th month now) (2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers (3) Reassertion of my good faith throughout these proceedings.

1) Good conduct during time served.

 * I believe I have properly followed the Arbcom’s edit restrictions (no edits in Ancient History and Medieval areas etc...) during the 6 months served (on a total of one year), a fact even recognized recently by Elonka.
 * I used this time to continue my contributions to Wikipedia in an intensive way, as encouraged by the Comity, creating from scratch major articles on cultural interactions, as well as numerous sub-articles, outside of my edit restrictions:  France-Thailand relations, France-Japan relations (19th century), Siamese revolution (1688), Japan-Thailand relations, Siege of Bangkok etc…
 * As requested, I refrained from engaging in lengthy disputes on Talk Pages, even when some behaviour seemed outrageous and illegitimate to me (such as removing important referenced material from articles):,.
 * A good consequence of this Arbcom ruling is that I have been able to further improve the quality of my contributions and sourcing. I’ve been working very positively with a mentor User:Angusmclellan for the validation of my foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones.

2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers.
During my Arbcom proceedings I regularly complained about Elonka’s implacable harassment, systematic mis-characterization of my edits etc… At the time, this was simply a matter between Elonka and me, but since then Elonka has been met by a huge amount of similar complaints from numerous independent users and Administrators, to the point that she was requested to honour her pledge to step down as Administrator (a pledge she will apparently not respect anyway, creating further doubts about her ethical conduct): User talk:Elonka, Requests for comment/Elonka. In any case, her behaviour has proven to be extremely controversial, and I believe it has been central in misrepresenting my editorial contributions and influencing the decision of the Arbcom. Finally, although the Arbcom had requested Elonka to refrain from pursuing me after the Arbcom decision was taken, she has continued to stalk/ harass me nonetheless.

In respect to Elonka’s apparent supporters, claims of Wikipedia:Tag teaming have also been made: Wikipedia talk:Tag team. Elonka is also known to sollicitate support off-Wiki for her on-Wiki battles:, a fact which I and other users suspect is quite systematic in her case. By doing so, Elonka unfairly manages to obtain the appearance of Community support in her disputes with others.

User:Jehochman, who initiated this Arbcom case against me, also has displayed quite alarming behaviour, recently being described as “if he was not an Administrator he would be called a vandal” and a “harasser” in his current drama with former ally Elonka Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall

I would like to leave behind any animosity towards Elonka or Jehochman for their actions against me, and I wish to reconcile with them, but I am asking the Arbitration Comity to take into account these revelations about the problematic behaviour of my main accusers, redress this unfair situation I have been put in, and free me from the effects of their abuse.

3) Reassertion of my good faith
I solemnly reaffirm that all my edits have always been done in good faith, as already kindly recognized by the Arbcom. I am no professional historian, but all my references have always been taken from proper published sources. I may have been quite enthousiastic for the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, looking for every bit of scholarly confirmation or every little bit of information on the existence of the alliance, but I never intentionally misrepresented sources, neither has it ever been shown (Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table), (Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop). When several editors band together to make this sort of accusations however it gives the overall impression that indeed there must be something awefully wrong with the attacked editor, and this can clearly sway an Arbcom decision.

Overall I am a good-faith editor who is fascinated by the subjects he writes about, and is maybe slightly over-enthusiastic about documenting them. I am extremely proud to have brought to light and documented such little-known subjects as the Franco-Mongol alliance, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism, Boshin War, Imperial Japanese Navy, France-Thailand relations etc... I document extensively all I write, and no, I don't misrepresent sources, or when it is perceived to be so, it is certainly not intentional and only a mistake on my part. In a nutshell, I believe my accusers have unfairly harassed and misrepresented my actions to obtain this Arbcom ruling, and such suspicion of undue behaviour has been hugely reinforced with Elonka's current similar disputes on a large scale with other users. I have however complied the best I could to the Arbcom resolution showing an example of good conduct. All my edits have always been done in good faith, and I believe this dispute has at least helped me improve in editorial and sourcing quality. In consequence, I request the Comity to rehabilitate me and now lift the edit restrictions against me. Regards PHG (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sam Blacketer has kindly provided a list of the findings of the Arbcom regarding my alledged use of the sources (Report on use of sources). I am thankfull that this at last provides an opportunity to discuss about facts rather then just accusations. However, besides the kind recognition that I never ever made up any reference, and that all my quotes have all proven to be exact, all the other findings are extremely weak and seem to rely on wrong interpretations or translations. I am quite amazed that such a severe Arbcom ruling can be passed with such little or faulty evidence. I respectfully ask the Arbitrators to read this list and my response to it, and reconsider. Best regards PHG (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
The conduct of other people is immaterial to User:PHG's sanctions. All the allegations concerned PHG's editing were independently checked and those that were confirmed were incorporated into the arbitration decision. Any rancor exhibited by third parties towards myself or Elonka has no bearing on PHG. The current situation, where PHG has a mentor, seems to be beneficial, and should be continued. I think that if a mentor is in place, PHG could be allowed to edit any article in the encyclopedia, so long as the mentor is checking edits to confirm that past problems are not resuming. Jehochman Talk 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka
With respect, I disagree with PHG's assessment, and I think it's best if the Committee declines this request for appeal. Though PHG has been editing within his restrictions, I have seen nothing from him to indicate that he even understands the problems that caused the sanctions from the previous ArbCom case. Also, we still aren't even done with the cleanup of the articles that he already affected. PHG might benefit from participating at the talkpages of the articles still requiring cleanup, to assist with their repair. That would be the best way that he could prove that he had turned over a new leaf, and was able to work in a collegial manner within that topic area. In the meantime, it is my belief that the sanctions are doing their job of protecting the project (as well as protecting PHG from further blocks or bans), and should be kept in place. --Elonka 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JJB
Just claiming my place in queue. I affirm PHG in his request for restrictions to be removed on the grounds I stated in the last request for clarification, namely, that no specific allegations against PHG were reported as confirmed by ArbCom; only a general affirmation of the validity of the allegations against him was offered. JJB 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova
PHG recently earned the 50DYK medal. He earns my thanks his dedication. Based upon PHG's contributions I was on the verge of supporting this motion, but am troubled by the selection and presentation of his claims regarding individuals who participated in the arbitration case. He mentions that Jehochman reconciled with Elonka about her recall pledge, but not that Jehochman initiated the recall motion itself. Nor does he mention that the recent noticeboard complaint against Jehochman was generally dismissed as meritless. I am grateful to be spared a role in the allegation. Unfortunately PHG's construction of that argument bears resemblance to the chief problem that led to his restriction: a tendency to selectively gather and present data that supports a given thesis, and including dubious evidence in support of that thesis while excluding strong evidence against it. Had PHG weighed my role in the Elonka recall movement, it really would not be possible to allege a unified conspiracy or cabal. For the record, I discovered this motion while reading my watchlist and haven't discussed it with anyone. My completely independent opinion is to let the current remedy stand. With respect, Durova  Charge! 23:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
I would also like to congratulate PHG for the recent 50DYK medal; I truly believe he is an excellent contributor and we appreciate all his efforts. However, comments as recent as this and this indicate that PHG has not resolved the concerns that brought us here - he has an unfortunate tendency to only give information which supports his position, even if that requires taking information out of context, skewing it to mean something completely different or ignoring obvious facts to the contrary. As shown in the diffs, PHG still asserts that he "refuted" all claims that he misrepresented sources and that there were no problems with his behavior, instead, he again focuses on Elonka and "attackers" as the reason the case went against him. This doesn't mean that anyone assumes bad faith of his contributions, but there is obviously a blind spot here and one severe enough that it needs watching if he's unable to recognize and resolve the issue on his own. Shell   babelfish 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Abd
The Committee continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, however, it found misrepresentation of sources and reactions to questioning. The errors in sourcing could be within what would be normal for a knowledgeable editor with opinions and a massive corpus of articles created, and did not represent willful distortion; hence my conclusion was that the essential problem was with civility, and when civility is the problem, it is rarely one-sided. In following the enforcement of the ban, I saw incivility and personal attack and possible harassment directed against PHG; each incident was a provocation which could have ended his Wikipedia career. While the behavior of others should not excuse poor behavior by him, it is also true that normal human beings will react to incivility with incivility, and identifying a "guilty party" often misses what really happened. I would not have advised PHG to file this Arbitration alone, and I would not have advised him to make the behavior of other editors an issue, but I also understand why he did, and his appeal should not be rejected on that basis. I would have encouraged him to try to work out alternative methods of satisfying the concerns of the community, and gather some support for them, before proceeding with an appeal. As an example, he's been required to use sources in English, a requirement that we do not place on other editors. Nevertheless, the requirement is an attempt to answer a real concern: how can we verify that he has accurately represented the sources? I have found it common in certain areas that sources are cited which are difficult to verify, even when they are in English, because the publications may not be readily accessible. We normally accept such sources, assuming good faith on the part of the editor. In a civil environment, solutions to the problem can be found. If there is mistrust and blame, it can be very difficult. PHG could, for example, scan an obscure source and make it available for review; translators could be found to confirm his translations; we could actively consult with experts as well. His content is well worth the effort. I recommend that the topic ban be lifted, provided that PHG continue to work with a mentor or mentors; he should receive advice not only with his use of sources, but also in how to find a productive consensus with the community. Further, whenever the Committee puts an editor under civility restrictions, it is incumbent on the Committee and the community to specially protect the editor from provocation. I saw the ArbComm sanctions against him misrepresented frequently as if the Committee had found him guilty of massive distortion of sources, which was not the case. Errors can be fixed, provided that civility and cooperation is established and maintained. Let's not inhibit this valuable editor; instead, lets help him and others cooperate more effectively. His critics can be very useful, they will restrain his "enthusiasm," by making sure that his sources are checked and that he does not draw unwarranted conclusions from them, and, if we are careful to maintain a constructive environment, the project can only benefit. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos
The original ArbCom was in response to some quite egregious behaviour which seriously undermined the credibility of Wikipedia in some of the areas in which the appellant edited, and they have never actually acknowledged to be wrong - instead trying to blame everyone else involved in the process. I don't think there are any matters for ArbCom to consider here. Orderinchaos 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Angus McLellan
The short version:
 * I do not agree with Fayssal as to exactly what the mentorship remedy says,
 * I do not feel that the remedies should be lifted at this time.

I said to Elonka and PHG here, about a month ago, that "I would be happier if PHG would ask advice in all cases, and especially before submitting DYKs" and that the decision to separate the two parts of Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance by and/or rather than and was not helpful. Fayssal seems to be reading things in the remedy which I don't see ("you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available" is missing the "or ask your mentor" part). Because of the and/or, that's not the remedy which I think I'm helping to implement, and it's not what PHG thinks I'm doing. Perhaps this could be clarified?

Elonka raised questions about two of PHG's new articles in July: here (regarding Shanhai Yudi Quantu) and here (regarding Cheonhado). Also regarding Cheonhado, see Elonka's opposition to the original DYK nom here. To me, the problem with the hook suggests that PHG still has to work on following WP:V closely. I appreciate the difficulty of writing hooks dealing with obscure topics which meet the relevant content policies and are interesting as well, but DYK hooks do not need to be sensational. My experience is that they don't even need to be especially interesting.

As regards the restriction on editing ancient and medieval articles in Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, I have only looked at one of the articles PHG mentions, Indo-Greek Kingdom. I do not see that PHG has yet entirely resolved the problems of sourcing which were seen there. For example, Mathsci commented (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance) regarding Siamese revolution (1688). This relies heavily on published editions of primary source materials and it is in no way clear whether it is the primary source which is being relied upon or the accompanying editorial apparatus. For example, in the Siamese Revolution piece, we read: "It is generally considered that Desfarges could have eliminated the conspiracy at this point if he had pursued his mission towards Lopburi ...". This is referenced to Smithies' Three military accounts of the 1688 "Revolution" in Siam, but it is not apparent whether this comes from one of the military accounts or from Smithies' commentary on the accounts. [And even if it came from Smithies himself, why does the word "generally" appear?] This sort of referencing is only useful to someone who has the cited source in front of them, and that is hardly likely to the case here as Worldcat shows. I am sure PHG could do better, and did do rather better at Siege of Bangkok. Given the problem seen here, I do not think that lifting this remedy would be in the best interest of PHG or the project as whole at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Fayssal and Brad for clearing things up for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tim Vickers
PHG's edits frequently distorted and misrepresented sources, as documented and discussed extensively at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. I am not confident that his tendency to bend sources to fit with pre-conceived views has ended, so I'd recommend keeping this remedy as it stands. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alvestrand
As long as PHG keeps asserting that he has "proved" things by stating his opinion about them, I am happy that sanctions remain in place. I think PHG does not understand that when multiple opinions exist, his opinion is not the one that gets to decide. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * While waiting for the input of the mentor... This remedy was very explicit PHG. It sets a limit which is a year and not six months though this is less important here since ArbCom may respond positively to such a request depending on the circumstances. But your request above got a few flaws. a) you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available -- you say your mentor assists you for the "validation of your foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones." b) one of your statements above includes diffs to admins' issues elsewhere; which are irrelevant to the case at hand. Remember that we are dealing with articles' sourcing. c) spending no more than 5 weeks (since July 17th) with a mentor is not enough. --  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Angus McLellan, the "or ask your mentor" is not missing. The point is that PHG says that he consults you in validating both foreign language sources (a good thing) and obscure ones(!) --  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Want to hear from the mentor before I comment. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the statements as they come in. I'm still waiting for a few more, from user's that were notified, before I comment. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the above statements, it is best for the remedy to be unchanged for now. The meaning of the remedy was clarified in the past. PGH can either use English sources that are easily available for most editors to review or PHG can consult with his mentor about using sources that are not easily for most editors to view. If the mentor and PHG agree that the reference is appropriate, then it can be used in a particular instance. PHG is not limited to choosing one approach or the other globally, but can decide in each instance which is the best approach. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd personally like to see a longer track record of working with a mentor before I will support modifying this remedy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, would not be comfortable with waiving or altering the remedies at this point. James F. (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Too early to modify. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the scrivener of the decision in Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. As I stated in that decision, we continued to assume the good faith of User:PHG, and I continue to do so today. However, the extent to which PHG had overstated or mis-cited the contents of sources used in articles raised serious issues concerning whether his article contributions were adding verifiable and reliable content to Wikipedia, particularly in articles on relatively abstruse historical topics that were unlikely to attract much scholarly attention from other editors. Contrary to the suggestion in the current request, the Arbitration Committee did not simply accept the word of petitioning editors such as Elonka and Jehochman that a problem existed, but arbitrators actually read through some of the cited sources to compare them with the uses that PHG was making of them, and verified that the problems were real. I trust that PHG can understand, and would appreciate if he would acknowledge, that a problem existed. To assure myself that the problem has been alleviated, would require a mentor or another user with relevant expertise to spot-check some of PHG's more recent articles on comparable subjects to confirm that sources are now being used appropriately and cited accurately for propositions that the cited works, taken as a whole, fairly support. To date, this showing has not been made and therefore I regretfully join in the decision not to modify the sanction at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the remedies in the case should not continue to take their course. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note the Report on use of sources in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)