Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Appeal

 * See also: About Enforcement of Sanctions against PHG by User:Abd

Dear Arbitrators. Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke has now kindly completed his independent review of the evidence (here). These findings clearly indicate that my sourcing is indeed proper, that I most of the time manage to properly represent what my sources say, and that my contributions are generally not undue weight. It also shows that the claims of POV/ Undue weight/ Mispresentation of sources made by my critics are unfounded and essentially false. I call for justice to be made, so that I can be properly rehabilitated for the quality of my work, and that my critics be warned against making undue deletions of my work and undue accusations against me.

My edit restrictions are supposed to end altogether after one year, mid-March 2009, in two months: this is the original Arbcom decision. In my opinion, nullifying this decision and obtaining a prolongation of the restrictions is anything but "a big improvement", and would have at the very least to be justified by serious issues since March 2008, which I don't think is the case at all: my work since March 2008 has been quite undisputedly top-notch. My behaviour under restrictions has been examplary, I have made Talk page suggestions as encouraged by Arbcom (although this is now being used against me, something I should be protected from), my sourcing and weighing of subjects is proving to be quite proper, and my critics are making demonstrably false claims against me: I suggest that this should be spelled out, and that, as a consequence of these findings, a rehabilitation and a motion freeing me of restrictions as scheduled (March 2009) should be implemented.

The only reason why an extension is now being considered (although for a narrower editorial area, as a compromise) is essentially because Elonka and a few others are still making the same old complaints about old edit wars and claiming hypothetical future issues. If the rule of law is to be followed, such complaints should not be legitimate reasons to restrict me beyond the original ruling: after my 1-year restrictions end I believe I should be "presumed innocent" again and given the chance to resume normal editing. If content disputes arise, per Wikipedia's rules, they should be handled through the proper editorial channels and dispute-resolution procedures. If major "behavioural" issues arise, then Arbcom should play its role. I believe established facts and a sense of justice should guide Arbcom decisions, not the expression of lingering enimities or unproven claims about hypothetical future issues. Feedback appreciated. PHG (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wording
Dear Arbitrators. I strongly object to the wording of one of the proposed decisions:

This statement was not present in the previous findings, and has been disproved by the independent review of the evidence made by Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke. It is essentially a copy-paste of Elonka's claims. The review shows and states that my representation of the sources is essentially proper and my contributions are not undue weight. Elonka's claims of POV-pushing, Undue weight or "massive damage" are therefore unwarranted, and there is no justification for the Arbcom to repeat them. Since the Arbcom March 2008, Elonka has set up her own interpretation of the Arbcom findings, establishing a supposed "cleaning list", from which supposed "POVs" had to be eliminated in order to repair alleged "damages" that would have been made, but this is absolutely not grounded in the 2008 Arbcom finding, and certainly not the application of an Arbcom mandate. It seems Elonka has been using the Arbcom as a pretext to set up her very own policing operation, and has been using it to constantly misrepresent my contributions: especially, insinuatory list-building seems to be one of Elonka's favourite techniques and has already encountered huge opposition on Wikipedia. The actual perusal of Elonka's interventions shows massive deletions of properly referenced material, which CHD has kindly qualified as being faithfull to sources and not undue weight. In many cases, valuable, referenced, not undue weight information is thus altogether eradicated from Wikipedia .I urge the Arbcom to kindly consider proposed decisions that are actually established by impartial inquiry, rather than a simple repeat of inexact claims made by critics. Best regards PHG (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the clearest "I just don't get it" statement I've seen in a long time. Shell    babelfish 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I only reviewed contributions since your restriction&mdash;after March 2008. There seems to have been more WEIGHT problems before the last arbitration. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cool Hand Luke. A large part of the evidence you have reviewed is actually pre-March 2008 evidence, since I have not edited these articles since then due to Arbcom restrictions (I only brought to the Talk Page some of the portions Elonka deleted). Please see next paragraph. Best regards PHG (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Extent of the independent review of the evidence
Dear Arbitrators. Please note that a large part of the evidence that Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke has kindly reviewed is actually pre-March 2008 evidence, as I have not edited these articles since March 2008 due to Arbcom restrictions: I only brought to the Talk Page some of the portions Elonka recently deleted (between November and December 2008). The pre-March 2008 material in question is: These contributions have been shown by Cool Hand Luke to be faithfull to sources and not undue weight. Cool Hand Luke's independent review of the evidence thus covers pre-March 2008 material as well as post-March 2008 and is therefore relevant to my contributions in general, not just since March 2008 (and I am grateful for that, because it shows the legitimacy of my contributions either before or after March 2008). PHG (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance
 * Talk:Guy of Ibelin (died 1304)
 * Talk:Jacques de Molay


 * Topic bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I needed to get an idea about whether you would still edit problematically in these areas if the topic ban was entirely lifted; talk page advocacy is the only way to gauge that. Although I disagreed with Elonka in one of her examples, I did find the proposed edits on the two other articles to be somewhat problematic for the reasons she suggested. These were not too serious (mostly off-topic information), but I also found that your interactions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Mongol textiles in Renaissance art and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence#Ujjain showed a willingness to cite questionable or ambiguous sources as authoritative for some position. These examples particularly convinced me that a continued topic ban is warranted.
 * I also found that you do a lot of good work, and I specifically wrote a finding to that effect. I hope that you can continue to improve in these topics with your mentor's help, and remedy 3 will give you an opportunity to do so. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cool Hand Luke. Could you share which sources you find "questionable or ambiguous"? PHG (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources for the map were questionable given the talk page discussion (especially using the Narain pamphlet map, which is at odds with Narain's own theories). The use of "Tatar cloth" in Bazaar to Piazza is at least ambiguous such that rendering the author's words as "Mongol textiles" was inappropriate. What's really interesting is that you've argued with four or five users about this point at length&mdash;including me. More than anything else, it convinced me that a narrowly-tailored topic ban continues to be appropriate; I'm not sure whether normal dispute mechanisms can adequately keep you from representing an ambiguous source as authoritative when it concerns these topics. Cool Hand Luke 06:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cool Hand Luke. Thank you for the precision, but I'm not convinced. 1) I am not sure how the map published in A.K. Narain's "Coins of the Indo-Greeks" could be at odd with A.K. Narain himself, the biggest Indian authority on the subject of the Indo-Greeks. Doesn't an author generally support the content of his own books? As far as I know, it is a fairly normal way of presenting the progression of the Indo-Greeks in India and it is not inconsistent with Narai's theories. 2) I know your issue with the word "Mongol" to explicitate "Tatar/ Tartar", which is otherwise supported by literature and dictionaries (here), but I agree that it could be considered ambiguous. I have long ago agreed however to your proposal of "Mongol Empire" instead, as a clearer solution and a compromise. I trust it is a normal part of the process on Wikipedia to defend sources when they are legitimate (A.K. Narain), or to argue a fairly legitimate point of view and then reach a compromise.
 * Maybe I tend to debate more than the average, but this may be a national trait, and maybe I also have a tendency to consider that reputable published sources should always have more weight than any Wikipedian's opinion, lest we create Wikiality ("if enough users agree with them, it becomes true" ): truth, individual rights, freedom of speech, knowledge are more important than consensus, and consensus has historically led to some of the worst atrocities, some of the worst scientific mistakes, and some of the worst financial meltdowns :-). Maybe it is naive, but I think we shouldn't even have content debate on Wikipedia, as long as we just lay out what various reputable sources say on a given subject, without arbitrary fights to keep or discard particular ones. It just seems so revolting when some users delete proper referenced content or historical quotes to push their side of the story (it's like book burning) . Aren't we supposed to offer the sum of all knowledge after all? Best regards PHG (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Guided by consensus
I see Vassyana is troubled by the wording that PHG's mentor should be "guided by consensus" on the talkpage in waiving PHG's restriction on some particular article. Since I was one of those who suggested this language, let me put how I would parse it:
 * It is the mentor's decision whether to waive or restore the restriction. He should be "guided by consensus" in the same sense as admins are guided by consensus at WP:RM: he should look at the evidence and the arguments, and if there is consensus for PHG to edit, he should edit; as to whether that consensus exists (and we don't need a fancy poll; on these articles, consensus will be one or two editors saying OK, or maybe even silence), it's the mentor's decision, and nobody can overrule him unless the mentor is being manifestly unreasonable; which I don't expect to happen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice please
Dear Arbitrators. I have been frowned upon for complaining about being the victim of Elonka’s tactics in my case (spin/ insinuation / innuendo/ misrepresentations/ /mischaracterization/ mixing of exact and false facts/ undue brutality in handling matters/ tendency to pursue specific editors/ mishandling of AE), but a huge amount of Elonka-related issues around Wikipedia are now making clearer than ever that this is indeed a rather systematic pattern of hers. Following an ongoing Arbcom clarification, it is now becoming fully apparent that User:Elonka has been misinterpreting/ misrepresenting a major Arbcom decision to act quite abusively ("in a high-handed and unfair manner" ) against numerous Users and Administrators. I can only sympathize with the victims, and I would like to draw attention to the fact that similar tendencies have been at work in her building up the Franco-Mongol alliance case against me for over a year now (as suggested by other users as well ), and that these behavioural patterns are now disrupting larger and larger parts of the Community. I can easily document such abuse against me upon request.

These kind of actions repeated globally, over a wide range of subjects against numerous editors and over a long period of time, are extremely worrying. I beg the Arbcom to take notice of such patterns, which have the potential to poison editorial activities on Wikipedia if not controlled, and to energetically protect the victims of such activities, of which I consider myself to be part. I would recommend that Elonka’s elaborate attacks should be viewed with the greatest suspicion, and that she should be restrained from making similar damage in the future. More and more editors are turning away from Wikipedia (graph attached Signpost article) probably because Wikipedia is becoming an ugly place to be in, fraught with ever-increasing conflicts, attacks, and nasty litigations. Well-meaning contributors are been turned away by an increasing atmosphere of control, repression, undue warnings and accusations, often leading to unfair restrictions. Control is good, over-control and repression of volunteer enthusiasm is not and may probably be driving away the very energy that helped develop this project in its initial stages.

I am disapointed that Elonka’s rhetorical clamours seem again to be influencing the Arbcom into prolongating restrictions against me (and even the wording of specific remedies), without any serious ground for doing so. I don't think the claims of such controversial editors should be taken at face value at all. This is only encouraging Elonka’s unfair behaviour and feeding her tendencies to misrepresentation. Please do the right thing, please support your enthusiastic volunteers and protect them from undue harassment. I’ve endured one year of (essentially unfair) editorial restrictions in the best possible way, remaining positive, respecting the Arbcom decision, and contributing a huge amount of valuable information, and I believe I should now be legitimately rewarded with the scheduled lifting of my restrictions in mid-March 2009 as planned, whatever Elonka says. Should proven problems arise, feel free to reinstate restrictions against me, but it would be really too unfair to extend restrictions on me based on the accusations of someone who has been proven to practice misrepresentation and wide-ranging abuse against other editors and fellow administrators. I trust that justice will ultimately prevail. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Chesterton, the wise prefer mercy. I would support that, if PHG were to ask for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be more careful with your sources Pmanderson (as always): "For children are innocent and love justice; while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy" G. K. Chesterton. So no, I'll just keep asking for justice to be done, a child with a dream of generously sharing all knowledge with the rest of the world :-) Cheers PHG (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew what I was paraphrasing, thanks; I did not wish to be misunderstood either as calling someone childish or guilty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is true that PHG has become one of Elonka's bêtes noires, this can be seen as an over-reaction to PHG's occasional tendency to push fringe historical theories on wikipedia. I think that ArbCom has listened as much to Angusmclellan as to Elonka: that is why the language ban has to a large extent been lifted. I personally would be surprised to learn that those editing WP articles on French history did not have a working knowledge of French. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I am leaving
Dear Arbitrators. After 5 years of enthusiastic and intensive activity as a contributor (I guess I put something like 4.000 hours into the project, not counting international travels to provide about 3.000 quality photographs from Museums around the world), I can’t believe I’m writing this, but here it is : I think I am leaving Wikipedia.

I behaved in an examplary way during my 1-year Arbcom term (even though I considered that my case had been grossly mishandled), creating more than 100 articles in the areas I could edit, and abiding by the Arbcom’s restrictions and accepting its offer to make proposals on Talk Pages in the article I couldn't edit directly. I asked a month ago for a goodwill gesture in symbolically shortening my term (only 2 remaining months!). All you came up with is, on the contrary, a lengthening of my editing restrictions based on the lingering enimities or unproven claims about hypothetical future issues from a few controversial editors (essentially based, ironically, on my Talk Page contributions as allowed by the Arbcom). You have an opportunity to correct an injustice, or at least to simply apply what you had decided in March 2008 (a one-year restriction), but instead you keep condoning the bullying and disinformation tactics of a user such as Elonka to lengthen these restrictions. This is totally unfair and contrary to justice.

What’s happening to Wikipedia ? Ethical standards are low and arbitrary: administrators, supposed to be examples of good behaviour, can fail to honour promisses made to the community (such as the key recall promisses made during the electoral process, discreetly changing the goalposts at the last minute , and still go around unbothered despite a huge recall movement ). Accountability of administrators and the rule of the law are essential elements of any healthy government, otherwise the people will simply keep defecting. I started in 2004 with the dream of generously sharing all knowledge with the rest of the world, and end-up in 2009 feeling like I am trying to contribute within the politics and proceedures of a police state. Administrators are increasing drastically in numbers, while editors are dwindling and running away (Signpost article). Control is good, over-control and repression of volunteer enthusiams is not and may probably be driving away the very energy that helped develop this project in its initial stages. Given the statistical trends, and given the atmosphere around here, I would be surprised if Wikipedia wasn't deserted two years from now. This is really sad.

As far as I know, I am far more senior and more educated than most of the people around here, so I will not spend my free time playing « sheriff and prisonners » anymore. I understood that a mistake could have been made once, especially given Elonka’s incredible capacity at twisting and misrepresenting facts, so I did everything I could to let you understand that on contrary you had a high-quality contributor in front of you, and dubious detractors who have regularly been confirming their huge potential for disruption around Wikipedia. If you cannot see this now, I am really not sure I should stay around here anymore. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Think again. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry to see this, but I'm hardly surprised. I would urge the arbitrators to carefully consider the decision and not consider it moot, for PHG might change his mind. If I had been treated as PHG was treated, I'd have left too. This does not mean that PHG made no mistakes, but it does mean that punitive models drive away voluntary participants, in the end. I see that the proposed decision, as it stands, did extend significant support to PHG, but did not address the hostile environment he faced, and which I observed during the initial topic ban period, and so, I'm guessing, it crushed his hope that he would eventually be vindicated (more clearly than what the proposed decisions express). The finding of extensive damage probably sealed it for him. I never saw evidence of that. The implication of this finding is that damage outweighs benefit. There were some situations where PHG may have interpreted sources in ways that others didn't confirm, but that's why we have editors in addition to writers, why publications have fact-checkers and don't fire writers who simply make some mistakes or controversial interpretations. Wikipedia is full of articles with inadequate sourcing, unreliable references, and the rest, and it started with a huge influx of such. If we believed that such articles -- and PHG's articles are of much higher quality than that -- are "damage," rather than merely "submissions," or "stubs," or simply "unreviewed articles," we would prohibit much of what we permit. WP:Flagged revisions will, I hope, address this, allowing steady growth in quality without prohibiting inexperienced editors -- and those with POVs -- from contributing.


 * As to PHG's claims with regard to Elonka, it's clear to me that Elonka became far too attached to the PHG situation, and this has been echoed by arbiters and others in the past. I consider Elonka a valuable administrator, and she often faces hostility when doing what she considers necessary. I'm not going to confirm PHG's claim beyond saying that I can understand how it could reasonably appear as he claims to him. Wikipedia badly needs more reliable and more efficient means of resolving disputes, once low-level methods fail, so that administrators may receive better guidance from the community, so that clear decisions supported by community consensus, can be found without disruption. Present procedures tend to become arguments, a struggle over who is right, rather than being processes which seek and find broad consensus. (Broad consensus means that most -- preferably all or almost all --who become involved agree, not merely a majority, and not merely those who present the most politically effective arguments that can impress those who don't neutrally investigate for themselves.) Consensus process is fairly well understood, there are experts at it, and we often fail to take advantage of this knowledge, using far more confrontational approaches. It is seriously damaging the project, and the damage accumulates, as experts are banned (they tend to be opinionated!), fans who know a narrow field find that their work disappears and they don't have a clue what happened, and we still don't succeed in making the project reliable; at the same time, articles where marginal sources are rooted out become less useful. Marginal sources can be used with proper framing, and especially notable marginal web sites, not reliable for fact, can be External links; examples can be seen in Green Party (United States). We are linking partisan sites that are far from neutral! In other controversial areas, such links are vigorously rooted out and even blacklisted, even without linkspamming. And I could go on and on. Behind all this is defective Wikipedia process, a process that worked very well when the scale was small,


 * PHG, as an editor, had a need. He was accused of falsifying sources. Even though a careful reading of the prior arbitration doesn't sustain that accusation (mere error isn't "falsification"), the prior arbitration was used as if it meant that. That accusation is very serious, but even the lesser accusation of improper inference from sources is still serious. PHG believed that a mistake was made, that an incomplete investigation by ArbComm erred, and when he attempted to resolve this, he was chastized. That left a wound, and when we do not attend to the needs of our editors, we will frequently lose them. Some will be happy about this. But I'm not. I believe that there are existing processes, or tweaks on them, which could resolve an issue like the alleged distortion of sources by PHG, in a way that would probably satisfy him, as well as reasonable opposition to his position. But we don't use them. We should start. I've been trying to do this, with some success, and did it with the matter of my own block. That block was based on a warning by Jehochman. I created a kind of self-RfC in my user space, for the purpose of advising me. That RfC concluded (from among participants, and everyone who had posted to my Talk in the period was invited) that I hadn't done what Jehochman had warned me for. I then went to Jehochman, and, ultimately, he agreed. He did not admit that his warning was in bad faith, nor did I claim that. I didn't then go to the next problem, the block itself, but I could have (and possibly would, if it became other than old news and moot). This is consensus process, done with a goal of maximized agreement. It often works. But it takes effort. Somebody has to care. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope PHG will do what many have done, and come back after a break.


 * I think this the weakest argument for WP:FLR I have yet seen; everyone concerned in this case would be an FR reviewer under any practical implementation. So we could have FR and still have this case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I wrote wasn't an argument for Flagged Revisions, but a hope for how FR might be implemented. For starters, though, under FR rules, one would not be allowed to review one's own contributions. In a mature implementation, marking a revision as Reviewed would require validating references. And the right to mark is a right would could easily be revoked if used negligently or worse. Thus we could continue to enjoy the work of brilliant writers who are not good editors and fact-checkers for themselves. That category, by the way, includes most good writers! --Abd (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since specifications for FR have never been stated, what is your evidence that editors would not be able to review for themselves? In fact, most discussion includes a class of reviewers that would autoreview their own edits, but not review others. (I think requiring two editors for every edit a profoundly bad idea - it would slow editing to a crawl - so I don't mind it being gone; but these unsourced claims that FR would, or would not, do this, that, or the other should be done away with.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I'm very interested in the FR debate, this isn't the appropriate place. I sincerely hope that PHG returns. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FR takes you to WikiProject France... Carcharoth (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which directs you on to WP:FLR. If anybody wants to discuss this further, see my talk page.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You should have done so earlier and ceased your contributions altogether after the first case. Elonka was far too well organized in her vendetta against you and the Arbcom was apathetic as usual. Wikipedia works like a corrupt banana republic. You're not exactly a cunning, devious, behind the scenes plotter, promising favors and seeking alliances in a smoke filled room :) So you never had a chance. That's the way things work here. You should concetrate on exposing what went on during this case outside of Wiki.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote this decision. Smoke filled rooms are now banned in Chicago, and smoking is against my religion. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)