Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop

Wikibreak
FYI, I will be out of the U.S. for the next week, and probably won't have internet access. I should be back online by January 5, 2009. My apologies for any delays that this may cause in the current case. --Elonka 07:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

About Enforcement of Sanctions against PHG
I don't know where to put this, so ... here.

Some editors seem to have become over-involved, at points, in "restraining" or "sanctioning" or "enforcing sanctions against" PHG, to the extent of harassment. He was blocked for allegedly violating his ban, when, in fact, he had not violated it. Claims were made that he had been sanctioned for "falsifying sources," which implies intentional misrepresentation, whereas the committee formally concluded that it could continue to assume good faith.

I do not doubt their good faith; however, PHG is also an extraordinarily valuable editor on the creation and writing side, even though he may need fact-checking and other editorial support. My observation and expectation is that if there is a genuine problem, a friendly warning would now be sufficient; he would cease the behavior and seek consensus or other resolution with the assistance of other editors. Given that, blocking him seems excessive, especially if a violation isn't clear or egregious, especially if it is doing no harm (such as creating an article on France-Japan relations (19th century), even if it had contained a fact dating back to medieval times, which it did not). (See block notice.) Blocks should be reserved for true disruption and lack of response to warnings. While an ArbComm sanction may be considered a strong warning, a "general" warning may still need specific application before the warned person understands the immediate application. "Construed broadly" may have opened a door to practically ridiculous extensions.

Some of what PHG faced, as a result of how the original ArbComm ruling was taken, may be seen at Arbitration enforcement discussion cited in PHG's last block. For reference, block log for PHG.

Editors, familiar with this case, concerned about future behavior of PHG, should now consider contacting PHG's mentor or his advisors; I'm one of the latter. I did *not* advise him to file this case, I wasn't asked, though I was informed of it. Had I not been busy at the time, I might have advised him to withdraw his request.

It is not that I object to the substance of his request, but he might more simply obtain what he needs. ArbComm never confirmed a truly serious charge against him (such as deliberate insertion of false material or willful falsification of sources); the problems I saw had to do with how the arbitration was presented to the community, as if it had been a finding of bad faith, deception, and ongoing danger to the project, rather than merely the kind of misrepresentation of sources that is not uncommon among experts (or knowledgeable amateurs) when they read into sources what is not there. We *all* need fact-checking, none of us are totally free of bias in reading sources. PHG was also blocked as the result of a translation error, the kind of error which could afflict any of us. (Even within our own language, we may construe words with unintended meanings.) Expecting a highly productive editor to never make mistakes, I am sure, wasn't the intention of ArbComm; rather, reasonable caution was intended.

What I'd like to see a statement by ArbComm affirming clearly that PHG is an extraordinarily valuable editor, that we are grateful for his contributions, and grateful as well for his persistence even in the face of adversity (many editors might simply have gone away, given what he faced). The original PHG arbitration was precisely crafted, a good piece of work, in my opinion, but I think that, even then, too little attention was paid to the positive side, and, as well, to other problems in the community which PHG faced. If it helps keep the peace in the community, then the continuation of a more precisely defined restriction is reasonable, which should be, properly construed and with the positive findings, practically harmless. Where new conflicts arise, I would advise PHG to back off, and act *as if* there were some restriction, a voluntary 1RR restriction (0RR if the dispute has become clear and remains unresolved, even a single revert should be used only with some reasonable expectation of acceptance by other editors). Sophisticated and collaborative editors tend to do this anyway. We'd be fools to not use the best of what he does, because we fear (or even see) problems with some of it. On the other hand, PHG should not take up his own cause but get help, when conflicts arise.

I have no experience drafting ArbComm "remedies" or statements, but I suppose I should try if someone else doesn't get to it before me. We need to provide the other side, the carrot, not just the stick, even if we more precisely aim that stick. I'd claim that we may not have needed the stick in the first place, but what is done is done. --Abd (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who has recently collaborated with PHG on edits, I find these suggestions very helpful. I agree that he is enthusiastic, resourceful and has a lot to offer WP. Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have enough positive evidence about PHG. Please use some of the evidence and create a nice, tasty, crispy, orange carrot, or even more than one carrots. Proposal for titles based in your text here: Thank you. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG is an extraordinarily valuable editor
 * Advice to PHG for self-imposed engagement rules
 * PHG contributes in good faith