Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 40

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130


Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley (March 2010)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Abd (talk) at 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Notification of this request, and acceptance of injunction against further comment by Abd on the current case, pending outcome of AE request.

Statement by Abd

original statement, not necessary to read

I am subject to an "MYOB" sanction, as amended:

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions by motion on 16:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent that ArbComm did not intend to prevent me from normal editing, which can, of course, involve some level of "dispute." The discussion leading up to that ban made it clear: my interventions in disputes was considered disruptive, though this had not been established by specific evidence, so the normal existence of examples helpful in clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent. However, consistent with the discussion, I interpret "originating party" as referring to being involved in some dispute primarily, as distinct from happening across two or more editors arguing and intervening. There is a present situation would could appear as the latter. However, it was, in fact, the former, I was an involved editor, and would have, for example, been allowed to file an AN/I report myself, presumably. My edits and discussion of the case were not considered violations of the sanction, until I responded to an AN/I report filed by one editor complaining about another, very much about that case. The sanction is not specific to AN/I, and if it prohibited what I did at AN/I, it would also seem to prohibit everything else I was doing.

But Sandstein has interpreted the line as being crossed at AN/I, interpreting "originating party" very strictly, in a technical sense, instead of as substance, i.e., as "already involved through legitimate and permitted editing." This interpretation was asserted before, in prior RfAr/Clarification, I questioned it, but this was not addressed by the committee.

Hence my request here. In this case, I considered filing this request before posting to AN/I, but I take WP:IAR very seriously, balancing the necessities of the project with the disruption involved in possibly violating a sanction. I judged that an emergency existed, and that serious and permanent damage might be done, were I not to intervene. Confirming and supporting on-wiki harassment of an editor, resulting from rejected off-wiki extortion over WP content, through a block, can damage the reputation of Wikipedia, and I was willing to risk being blocked to prevent or at least warn against this damage.

I'm presenting links to the history of this incident in collapse. They are only here as an example of how the sanction might be ambiguous, not to involve ArbComm in a dispute without groundwork being laid. No action other than clarification is requested at this point. Sandstein has issued a "clarification" which means that I'm clearly enjoined from repetition of what triggered the AE report, whether that was a sanction violation or not. However, now, some days later, and with the injunction requiring all abstinence from comment on the situation outside these pages, whether as "originating party" or not, and because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr; the instant situation is being used as a claim (below) that the strict interpretation was necessary to avoid disruption, thus it may be necessary to examine that, and I have no means of doing so outside of an RfAr, otherwise I'd follow ordinary DR over my dispute. That's the result of an over-strict interpretation of the ban. I'll wait a while to see, though. Please understand that I prefer any decision to no decision. No decision leaves me wondering what the hell ArbComm intends. Some seem to believe that it was basically, "Go Away, Abd, this is our project, not yours." Fine. ArbComm can decide that. I agree, even, with half of it. At least I thought it was "our project." comment revised due to shifting situation --20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@SamJohnston: Since he is insisting so strongly here (and elsewhere around the wiki) I'll pull this part out of collapse. I urge it be read by anyone who wants to understand the situation better, though the deeper background remains described and linked in the collapse box. It seems to me that I was arrested and charged with jaywalking while someone was being mugged on the sidewalk. Definitely, I shouldn't jaywalk, in general, especially after being warned, but ... what if I crossed the street to prevent a mugging? And the police came running ... and arrested me as that notorious repeat jaywalker? And the mugged person is also arrested for "disturbing the peace," i.e., yelling and getting blood on the sidewalk? Besides, he was wanted for an unpaid traffic citation. The mugger is thanked for calling attention to these criminals. Okay, dramatic, but perhaps you get my point.

AN/I report section on off-wiki harassment: archived discussion permanent link, present state

There is more response to SamJohnston in the collapse box for responses to involved editors; however, his allegations are not relevant here, which is why the response is in collapse. The issue here is the interpretation of the sanction so that further unintentional violations do not take place, or, alternatively, AE actions are not filed on behavior not prohibited. The current incident is described only as an example where there was, certainly for me, or possibly for others, a difficulty of interpretation, and there have been opinions given by other editors, both ways.

I'm not asking ArbComm to decide whether or not I was justified under WP:IAR, because that would not clarify the sanction.

other links to current situation

AN/I full report: archived discussion permanent link, present state with this filing
AE request: current link permanent link, present state
Sandstein's proposed result: permanent link, present state
Notice that I consider Sandstein not involved and able to issue an injunction that will be respected.
link to request on my Talk page to enforcing admin.
Permanent link to request to reconsider on Sandstein Talk.

@TenOfAllTrades. I wrote TOAT to consider just what came to light in the AN report discussing his block of LirazSiri, and which led to another admin reversing his action. I describe the mail in the collapse box below.
@TenOfAllTrades. Again! Thanks, it's a brilliant plan to find consensus on Wikipedia: (1) Block/ban anyone you don't like. (2) Block/ban anyone who defends or supports anyone you don't like. (3) Ban anyone who objects to this, after all, they are disruptive and should instead be working on articles. (4) Done. Consensus. No more disruption. Except for all the socks, but we'll have better software soon. --Abd (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Replies to various involved editors and administrators

(Involved means that these editors are or have been involved in conflict with me and may be expected to have a possible prejudice. It is not a claim that they are guilty of some misbehavior.)

@SamJohnston: this request is to clarify the sanction. "This behavior," your term, is unclear, the sanction was not accompanied by evidence of specific incidents, and an MYOB sanction appears to be a new device, as far as I can tell. There have been multiple allegations of violation, most of which were not accepted as such. It's unclear what it means, I guarantee that. Hence the need for this clarification. Your comment is a possible interpretation. We are here to discover how arbitrators understand it. It's not at all clear that they considered it sufficiently, so now they have an opportunity.

It is not asked of ArbComm that they judge my recent behavior as appropriate or not appropriate in itself. Rather, it is requested that the committee clarify the meaning of the sanction, so that I can know more precisely what is permitted and not permitted. I had other choices at the time of the action behind the current enforcement request that might have been less likely to trigger an AE request, and if the sanction is interpreted to prohibit what I did, I would, in the future, take these other steps, such as emailing ArbComm directly for permission or to inform them of a developing situation. Or similarly emailing an administrator with the necessary information. I did this, in fact, while site-banned, I emailed JzG with information about a sock puppet filing AfDs. He quite correctly conveyed the information to AN or AN/I. Unfortunately, as often happens, nobody paid any attention to the report, and nothing was done until much later.

Since SamJohnston continues to insist, and drags in off-wiki evidence, and the evidence is cherry-picked to present his desired appearance, I refer again to the evidence I now have pulled out of the history collapse, that I posted to AN/i. SamJ acknowledges below threatening to AfD an article if the editor does not "chill" with respect to a different page. Suppose the editor does "chill." Would he then still file the AfD? If not, why not? If the topic is not notable, it should be AfD'd anway! No, Sam was attempting to control the behavior of the other editor on a page not related to the notability of TurnKey Linux, the article in question. That was coercion. And when LirazSiri did not comply with the demand (i.e., tweeted back with "chill," himself, SamJ began his campaign of harassment. Some of the actions were legitimate, taken by themselves, just as if someone might move around, comb through my contributions, and find every questionable action I've taken or article I've created, and revert or nominate for deletion. All at once. All the while crying "vandalism," as he does below, a claim that has been sustained by nobody. And he's done more, much more.

Threatening to AfD an article known or presumed to be important to an editor, because the editor disagrees with you on another page? This is coercion, and is the kind of off-wiki harassment that is clearly a violation of policy, and it's amazing to me that SamJ continues to wave this like a big red flag in front of the community. In a sense, he's right. It seems to take something really dramatic to get the community's attention. It's why he'd want to do that which is a mystery to me.

@Stephen Schulz: Sure. You are involved, historically, in conflict with me. [3] was my evidence in the subject case, showing prior involvement in conflicts related to that case. The conflict originated with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight and continued in various venues.

@Future Perfect: Future Perfect blocked me in enforcement of this ban, but for an edit in which I criticized him over his reversion of my !vote in a poll at AN. This was recusal failure, for sure, but also shows how the ban has been wikilawyered to mean this or that, whatever the interpreter wanted. I was never clearly found to have violated the ban based on those poll votes, and ArbComm did have an opportunity to comment on it. Again, unclarity leads to confusion and opportunity for those with an axe to grind.

@TenOfAllTrades: I will send a copy of the email and TenOfAllTrades's response to any arbitrator on request. I would post it here but it contains details about the current situation, and the other editor involved in it. The mail was civil and not tendentious. It stated at the beginning that TOAT was free to ignore the mail. It was not a demand of any kind. It was sent in a hope that TenOfAllTrades might simply reconsider his action with respect to LirazSiri. As noted, I cannot read the deleted edits, but it appears that they contained nothing like what has been described, an attempt to "out" JzG, who is, after all, User:Guy Chapman as the redirect says with his apparent approval. LirazSiri claims that he was actually attempting to be friendly, but without seeing the actual edits, I cannot, of course, confirm that. Could it be that an idea that this editor is some kind of monster is then affecting how his comments are read? I don't know.

But I know that last year I did ask TenOfAllTrades to intervene to talk some sense into the admin over which the subject case was filed, or at least to attempt to defuse the situation, and that TenOfAllTrades responded as if I'd ask him to do something very offensive. Had he responded more sensibly, Wikipedia might still have that editor as an administrator.

@Short Brigade Harvester Boris: SBHB is also an involved editor, part of the faction I identified in the subject case. It's only a handful of editors and administrators, comparatively! Please remember, the factional identification was not an allegation of misbehavior, only of involvement in a pattern of activity, which included calls for me to be banned previously. This response is inside this box because ArbComm is not asked to decide if I should be banned, though certainly it could decide to respond in that way. These arguments by SBHB are misleading, as we might expect from someone involved. SBHB is a master at brevity in tossing mud. He's also quite perceptive sometimes, I always pay close attention to what he writes.

  • Testing the limits again. There have been several AE filings and actions. The decisions have gone both ways; actions which were clearly permitted were the subject of filings. So far, I have not, once, taken an action where I deliberately pushed the edge; each time, I believed that the action was permitted, and with one possible exception. This time, I knew that some editors believed that the AN/I comments I'd made would violate the sanctions, and I would thus have waited for clarification if not for an emergency. Shit happens, as they say. Unexpected circumstances arise. I'm not going around looking for edges to test, at all. I'm trying to work on the project, and I deal with what I see, like most editors. It happens, though, that I see stuff that others miss. Whether I was right or wrong on that, however, is not the issue here. The issue is the meaning of the sanction, and if ArbComm clarifies the meaning, surely that would leave me less room to "test the limits." There is no emergency now, and if ArbComm does nothing, damage will be slow in arriving. I'm now bound to interpret the sanction very narrowly, much more narrowly than I believe was the intention of the Committee, pending clarification.
  • eating or breathing. Yes, I still do those things, probably for a while yet, though at my age, and with my health status, I'm acutely aware that there are limits to this. I don't want to waste my time, and "testing limits" would be quite a waste. There are no limits, in fact, as I see about every day, until and unless you run into one, and it's not reliable when that will happen. Sometimes an editor gets away with insane disruption for years, with nothing happening until it does, and sometimes an editor jaywalks and is promptly indef blocked, and nobody does anything about it.
  • clarifications every few months. Well, this is the first one I've filed. One was filed by another editor, but instead of taking the opportunity to clarify, it enjoined the other editor from mentioning me. It actually picked the wrong editor to sanction in this way.... so disruption has continued. At some point ArbComm will learn to deal with the cases presented to it so as to avoid continued disruption. If someone is asking for clarification, maybe they need clarification! Not a ban against asking. If there are continued requests, ArbComm can surely deal with that then.
  • remove him from the project. Whether or not ArbComm can even do this depends on the definition of the "project." Certainly it could site-ban me, but that would, as I've stated elsewhere, simply move my activity off-wiki, where there would be no control over it at all. I'm indifferent, in the end, I'd only feel some loss with respect to article work, which is limited anyway. I function through advice, not through control. I can do certain article work without "cooperation," but most of what I do involves seeking what might be called "obscured consensus," that is, situations where participation bias causes an appearance of rough consensus that is different from what a broader consideration would produce. Seeing stuff like this is indeed like eating or breathing for me, always has been. I've been effective at this, I'll note. But that pisses off people who were the "participants" in that false consensus, people who sometimes were able to OWN|own articles or whole areas of policy for years. The proof of my work, however, is in ultimate resolutions, which often comes after I appear to have "failed." That's one reason why blocking or banning me is unlikely to reduce disruption. The disruption, in fact, is not coming from me, it just looks like that sometimes. It's classic "shoot the messenger."
  • The flap over my supposed ban violations has consumed far more time than any disruption that would have accrued from tolerating them. Ultimately, perhaps, the ban should be reconsidered, but I'm waiting for evidence to accumulate naturally such that ArbComm could see it clearly. And there are other matters, problems that I see I should address that do not involve violating any reasonable interpretation of the ban, and that are ripe. "Ripe" means that I see that consensus is reasonably likely to form. I don't push for stuff when that time has not arrived, though I sometimes mention about it. (added 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)).

@Mathsci: WP:RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley#Mathsci reminded. Whom do you think you are fooling with "Uninvolved Mathsci"?

@EnricNaval: Yes. The ad-hoc clarification by admins at AE is legitimate, that is, it is proper for them to make an interpretation and enforce it, and to issue clarification, which ArbComm can accept or change, without any aspersions being cast on them. If they are involved, however, in some way, it might not be proper. That's not the case with Sandstein, I explicitly accepted his neutrality even when I knew that his proposed interpretation was, I believe, incorrect. If ArbComm takes no action here, then his interpretation stands and I'm bound by it. Which probably does mean that I'll stop editing Wikipedia as Abd, and if this is the result that arbitrators desire, they need do nothing. As to the instant case, if ArbComm wants to understand whether the strict interpretation being proposed was actually useful, it would have to look at that case, which could be arranged. I cannot arrange it because Sandstein has required me to avoid comment on that case outside of these pages. I could file an RfAr, though, I assume. Maybe I should, being prevented from acting short of that by the interpretation. If that were considered improper, ArbComm could easily move to site-ban me. But I'd be an "originating party," clearly. However, the present case doesn't define the sanction, and, even if the clarification by Sandstein et al stands, I'd probably have commented anyway, under the strict interpretation, because of IAR, and if a similar situation arises again (rare, I saw truly egregious abuse like I've never seen before, and I've seen a lot), I'd do it again. For better and for worse.

I'm still trying to figure out this wiki thing, when lots of editors here, part of a vanishing crew, seem to think they've got it down cold. They don't. It's failing. And lots of present and former editors, administrators, and arbitrators know it. I'm one of the few people actually trying to fix the system instead of imagining that the problem is Bad Editors and can be fixed by banning them. Has that worked?

Some days ago, while I was still blocked as a response to material in the statement I've now collapsed above, I wrote that I preferred to withdraw the request. If that had been noticed and copied here, it would have perhaps saved a little time by the arbitrators who subsequently commented, but I concluded that the issues on which I needed clarification were complex enough that raising them in this venue was unlikely to be fruitful, hence, for the time being, I am bound to follow an interpretation of the sanction that is quite a bit tighter than I had thought was intended. Please consider the request withdrawn. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

This is related to the open enforcement request at WP:AE#Result concerning Abd. The question asked at some length above is whether my interpretation proposed there of "originating party" in Abd's restriction is correct. I appreciate any guidance by arbitrators on that matter. So as not to complicate matters further, I have asked Abd not to continue his current dispute in any venue before the request for arbitration enforcement is resolved.  Sandstein  21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have noted in the AE thread that Abd has agreed to abide by the meaning of the sanction as explained below by Fut. Perf. until such time as ArbCom makes a different decision. Given this, I've also noted that I don't think that enforcement action remains required at this time, and I've no opinion about whether, under these circumstances, this clarification request remains necessary.  Sandstein  06:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SamJohnston

This is utterly ridiculous. Abd has been explicitly forbidden from engaging in this behaviour and is just off the back of a three month ban. The fact there is any question whatsoever that the original editing restriction was blatantly and repeatedly violated is incomprehensible to me. This editor deserves to be blocked - for me it's just a question of how long for. -- samj inout 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

After a more thorough review it is absolutely clear that the intention of the editing restriction was to prevent exactly this type of situation from recurring. Attempting to "clarify" the restriction is either an attempt to work in a loophole that would effectively make it meaningless or an attempt to avoid requested enforcement (or both). In any case it's obviously wikilawyering and the exception should be interpreted narrowly (as it was intended). Conversely, "clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent" with good reason - the restriction itself was intended to apply broadly to any debate about any topic where User:Abd was not an "originating party". I hope we don't have to clarify the meaning of "originating party" as seems fairly self explanatory - however User:Abd's claim of "originating party" status in the LirazSiri situation ought to be explicitly rejected (Update: and has been, here). -- samj inout 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
User:GoRight raises a good point about the interpretation of "originating party" (what we would typically call a "plaintiff") in that the scope should be *expanded* to include disputes where Abd is named (e.g. "defendant"). User:Future Perfect at Sunrise summarises it nicely below: The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you. -- samj inout 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned my request for enforcement was improperly closed (at Abd's behest no less) in spite of protests from other users and at least one admin. Thus while that particular avenue may have been exhausted prematurely, the underlying issue remains unresolved. I reserve the right to pursue it through the usual channels pending the official outcome of this request for clarification - both as a victim of his personal attacks and of his incredible ability to sap energy and waste the time of all those who [are forced to] engage with him. I hope and trust the arbitrators will reaffirm and enforce Fut.Perf.'s interpretation, as if this were not the intent, what could it possibly have been?

I too initially believed Abd had agreed "to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained [...] in an unambiguous and convincing manner" but he didn't even wait half an hour after this was acknowledged before he started off a new thread on his talk page directly disputing it, and kicked off a dispute with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for good measure. He had also been emailing the editor he had been egging on the whole time (once again involving himself in a third-party dispute even while the enforcement request was being discussed) and continues to undermine the project and cause trouble.

P.S. Warning an active spammer/vandal that you'll nominate their article for deletion at AfD if they don't chill out is not "off-wiki harassment". This is off-wiki harassment. And despite all the usual hand waving, finger pointing, wikilawyering, etc. this clarification is the direct result of Abd turning routine cleanup after a career conflicted editor into a multi-venue, multi-editor dispute. Quoting JzG: "It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it." -- samj inout 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

When Abd had commented at length on WP:ANI concerning TurnKey Linux in a matter where he was not an originating party, I left a reminder there of his editing restrictions without further comment. Other editors, including Enric Naval (talk · contribs), also commented. At ANI Abd's reaction has been problematic: an attempt to smear us, because we commented in the Abd&WMC case - as if we like him are under some kind of sanction as a result of that case (see above for example). He has written similar remarks about JzG (talk · contribs). His posts on ANI seemed inflammatory and contrary to the ArbCom editing restrictions. Sandstein interpreted them this way at WP:AE and other users seem to agree there. Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) has commented there and also subsequently been described as "involved" by Abd; he has been banned from Abd's talk page. Likewise Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is now apparently "involved" and "in dispute" with Abd, according to Abd's talk page. Abd's escalation to a request for clarification and aggressive threats to SamJohnston [4] are a repetition of the wikilawyering and time-wasting already witnessed in early January, when the short phrase on mentors was removed. That he is periodically testing the limits of his editing restrictions in this tendentious way is not a good sign at all. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Abd made some kind of commitment to Sandstein, which he has just withdrawn, [5] a few hours after his block. He appears to be threatening to start an RfAr concerning FPaS's block. Hopefully this threat of further disruption and time-wasting can be nipped in the bud by either ArbCom or the community. Mathsci (talk)

Statement by (uninvolved, but Abd disagrees) Stephan Schulz

The aim of the remedy is to keep Abd from wasting the time of everybody involved with his tendency to wikilawyering and his prodigous output, while still allowing him access to WP:DR where it is really necessary. Therefore the exception should be interpreted narrowly, not widely. If he can enter any dispute simply by claiming to be involved, or by claiming that he wanted to file a DR request "soon", the restriction becomes useless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I have offered the following clarification to Abd [6], and intend to enforce it as long as Arbcom doesn't provide a different decision:

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that "conflict in which you are an originating party" means the same as "conflict in which you have a prior interest". It doesn't mean that. It means there is a conflict that arose from a disagreement between A and B, and either A or B is you. Simple. In the present case, there was a conflict between A (SamJohnston) and B (LirzSiri). Neither A nor B is you, so it's off-limits. The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As Abd has continued to breach the restriction on this very page, by continuing his comments about the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston, in terms that amount to personal attacks [7], I have blocked him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from TenOfAllTrades

I've just received an email regarding this dispute from Abd, attempting to intervene with me on behalf of LirizSiri (whom I recently blocked for attempted outing and threats to reveal personal information). While this may technically adhere to the terms of his restrictions, Abd is certainly evading their spirit. Frankly, I find Future Perfect's statement above to offer the simplest, clearest interpretation of the intent of Abd's sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Observation regarding GoRight. I note that, as has been the pattern since at least Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (in which these restrictions on Abd's conduct were originally established) GoRight is continuing to argue on Abd's behalf, and continuing to encourage Abd's misguided interest in counterproductively inserting himself into other editors' disputes. While I am unsure of what form such a remedy should take, perhaps it is time to consider an ArbCom resolution along the lines of "GoRight shall refrain from encouraging other editors to be wikilawyering nuisances." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Addendum: I have also previously, explicitly asked Abd not to email me. It is both telling and troubling that he felt the need to ignore my wishes to avoid off-wiki, off-the-record communcations with him in order to evade his editing restrictions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Observation from uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Abd is testing the limits again. It's just what he does, like eating or breathing. Thus Arbcom has two choices: (i) you can resign yourselves to dealing with "clarifications" re Abd every few months for as long as he's on the project, or (ii) remove him from the project. It's up to the Arbs how you prefer to spend your time, but experience proves those are your only realistic alternatives. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I agree with Fut. Perf. and would endorse enforcement to that effect based on the wording of this restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As stated, I've endorsed the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

The interpretation is inside the discretion given to admins in WP:AE. The goal of the restriction was keeping Abd out of disputes that he doesn't belong to (because he makes a mess out of those disputes). The interpretation is accomplishing this goal. The restriction has shown that it's effective by cutting short this latest dispute. The restriction has shown that it's useful in cutting drama and disruption before it gets out of hand. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Before the edit that caused this last block, Abd had already tested the boundaries of his voluntary self-limitation. He commented in LirazSiri's page about the advice given to him, after saying that he wouldn't comment more on the dispute. It doesn't look like Abd is taking this seriously.

Abd is also making unwarranted analogies, like comparing himself with a man that is trying to rescue his spouse and children from a fire [8].

Please let admins at WP:AE take care of this and don't allow Abd to escalate this so he can grandstand about how he is being prevented from saving wikipedia from itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoRight

After FP posted his clarification on Abd's talk page, I took the opportunity to (hopefully obviously) play the role of devil's advocate with respect to this excessive focus on the word originating. To that end I posted a comment which took that focus to it's logical interpretation:

"Actually, if you want to focus only on the word "originating" the sanction actually bars Abd from participating in any DR which he did not personally initiate. This leads to the absurd situation where others can initiate DR against Abd and he is barred from even defending himself which indicates how ill-conceived this particular sanction actually is. Arbcom should restructure the entire sanction to implement something that is at least logically consistent. --GoRight (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.

FP then responded with a rather predictable stance:

"Wrong. It's not about having played an "originating" role in the DR procedure (e.g. having started a noticeboard thread), but about having played an originating role in the dispute that triggered the DR process. If Abd finds himself in a content disagreement with somebody, and then that other editor or a third party starts a noticeboard thread about Abd, he is of course an "originating party". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.

At which point I was forced to again point out the logical fallacies in FP's thinking:

"You simply assert that you are correct. I simply assert that you are incorrect, FP. Who's right? Where has Arbcom indicated that your interpretation is correct?

Interestingly, with this post you now seem to be arguing Abd's point for him. If A, B, and C are all arguing about some particular issue and A files a DR action against B but explicitly excludes C how can you argue that C has NOT played an "originating role that triggered the DR process"? On what basis are you claiming that B is an originating party but C is not? Again, your original position stated above makes no logical sense. Either my interpretation as stated above is what was meant, which is clearly absurd and should be corrected, or I guess you are now in agreement with Abd's view and so he was correct all along. In either case your original interpretation is logically flawed. --GoRight (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.

In the end, while FP's interpretation may be convenient for himself and Abd's detractors in general, it makes literally no logical sense at all. At this point I would actually just observe that this sanction is causing significant disruption in its own right given that it (a) isn't clear what it actually means, and (b) isn't clear what it is actually trying to address. Given the level of disruption occurring here it may make more sense to either remove the sanction entirely or restructure it to address a specific identified behavior and word it in a clear and enforceable manner.

Lacking any such substantive changes I fear that we will find ourselves in a never ending cycle of discussion over the whole thing as Abd's detractors come up with even more inventive ways to misinterpret and misapply this ill-defined and perhaps ill-conceived sanction. --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


At some point in the above sequence of events FP had added more clarifications to Abd's talk page:

"More clarification for you. If editors A and B are having a content disagreement, and you see them edit-warring or engaging in other forms of questionable behaviour against each other, then the "conflict" in question is, and remains, a conflict between A and B, and only A and B are the originating parties. You may not then engage in any activity criticising, reporting on, or debating with, either A and B because of their behaviour in this dispute. About your interpretation that "If I see an editor violating a policy, and I ask that editor to stop, and the editor refuses and claims the actions are proper, we have a dispute": no, the intent of the sanction is precisely to stop you from spawning these kinds of follow-up meta-disputes. You may only approach an editor asking them to stop a questionable behaviour if that behaviour was already directed at yourself. Same for the issue of when to raise a matter at noticeboards: only if and when it relates to an original disagreement between you and some other editor about your own content editing, and/or if the other editor has explicitly taken the first step addressing you as their opponent in a disagreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"

I then pointed out the logical flaws in this set of interpretations as well:

"@FP - Sorry, FP, but this interpretation is clearly absurd. It implies that if Abd observes an edit war in progress that he cannot take action to raise the issue at appropriate venues such as AN3. I see nothing in the sanction nor the discussion surrounding it that suggests that Arbcom intended to bar Abd from taking proper actions to protect the project. If you believe that they did, please indicate where and how they made that point clear. --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"

I can only assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the sanction was never intended to bar Abd from taking proper steps to protect the project from harm when he saw such harm actively occuring but this appears to be exactly what FP is asserting. If a vandal reinserts his garbage into an article after some other editor had previously reverted it, is it the intent of this sanction to actually bar Abd from confronting the vandal who is now in a dispute with another editor? The lengths to which this sanction can be misapplied are endless and disruptive to the project. --GoRight (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Question for TOAT: What part of my statement above appears to be encouraging Abd to do anything at all? Please point me to the specific portions that make such encouragement so that I can correct them forthwith. It is not my intention to encourage any editor to take any particular action, other than to encourage Arbcom to pro-actively eliminate or restructure the sanction in question so as to clarify its intent and to render it more directly enforceable than it is in its current incarnation. It is my belief that doing so will minimize disruption on this issue moving forward.

Let me be clear and direct: I encourage Abd to continue to take his sanctions seriously and to continue to endeavor to adhere to them to the best of his ability given his best understanding thereof. --GoRight (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FP's current block of Abd: I have opened an AN report here. --GoRight (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned edits in sections written by others: I note the following [9] which was placed in a section written by Abd but was unsigned which makes it appear as though Abd wrote it. Perhaps the author or a clerk could move this comment into the author's own section to avoid confusion on this point? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by typically disinterested Badger Drink

I'm not sure it's possible to clarify things any further with Mr. Abd, whether his obliviousness is innocent or deliberate, the end result is the same. He seems to have confused WP:IAR with WP:IGNOREALLSANCTIONS, which is mysteriously red-linked. And so we move on to the passive-aggressive threats of sockpuppeting (see the "@EnricNavel" section of Abd's most recent missive). I can only speak for myself, but I know I'm shivering in my boots - well done, Abd. "If I decide your sanctions are unfair, I'll totally start socking to get around them, and then what will you do? *swivels black leather chair to survey cityscape with a smirk, silently petting largely disinterested snow-white pussycat*". What a valuable, mature, level-headed contributor to our online encyclopedia! Badger Drink (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

The tumbleweed seems to be blowing through the arbitrators# section. Does this mean:-

  1. The arbs are all fed up with anything and everything Abd related and can't bring themselves to respond
  2. The arbs are furiously arguing about the appropriate motion on their mailing list
  3. The arbs are supremely indifferent
  4. All of the above.

Thank you for your consideration. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Abd's statement above is over 3,000 words. A bit of brevity would go a long way here. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Ireland article names (2) (March 2010)

Original discussion

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


Initiated by ~ R.T.G at 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

  • I will note it on the project page. I would not presume or pretend to know the full list of editors affected by the project.


Statement by RTG

Note:This request is about the Wikiproject Ireland Collaboration and, perhaps, how to move the naming debate out of it without discussing naming at all!

A discussion has arisen on the project about renaming it as Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate. The collaboration project was created at the instruction of ARBCOM. Judging the front page of the project, its description of inspiration and goals, a major intention was to provide a collaboration area for loyalist/unionist and republican/nationalist to collaborate and consider disputes. Please clarify this. Is it the WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate or is it the collaboration project intended to concile culturally opposed editors as may be presumed by the projects front page?

The Naming Debates have overshadowed the collaboration project. Nothing else appears to exist on the projects discussion and these naming debates are impossibly long. They also concern editors mainly of republican/nationalist persuasions excepting for some contributions from neutral editors. The Naming Debates were a runaway train long before the collaboration project was created. As such a debate chokes the life out of all else on a project page, should such debates be moved prerequisite to a sub-project such as the now suggested Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate only to provide notifications to the parent project detailing progression or events (such as voting) to prevent overshadowing other issues?

The Naming Debates, as per normal dispute progression, have not produced a collection of evidence outside of signed statements to ARBCOM and talk page threads, signed statements and conversational viewpoints. Should editors in a runaway train dispute be requested in good faith to produce a collaborative collection of verifiable evidence without signatures or conversational viewpoints? Would such a page of evidence spread a little grease on the path of neutral evaluation? Neutral editors have shown up often to the Naming Debates but rarely managed their intended contribution. Also, editors making signed statements have an invitation to be as convincing and therefore cunning as they see fit. Would an unsigned collection of consolidated and verified evidence be preferential in a dispute put to the wider community for evaluation, even if it were divided into sections preferable to particular disputees collective persuasions?

Please, tell me where you get lost and I will explain. I do not have a second level education to speak of.

Please consider my request on the talk page to use context definitions in the clarification request heading.

Thanks, ~ R.T.G 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Kirill, for any arbitrator reading this, by RTG

What about producing collaborating evidence, Ireland naming debates or other disputes, is it preferable to Arbcom? Would you consider at least requesting it of disputes? Without discarding the podium (everybody making signed statements or signed talk page comments), can there not be an alternative method whereby disputing parties gather together evidence much like a regular article detailing the whys and whats of disputed content? Is that not a good idea even if it were never taken advantage of? I think that it would be taken advantage of if Arbcom regularly suggested it. For the purpose of initiating collaboration between content diputees with cultural differences, it would be like requesting an Ireland collaboration project except with less scope for verbal dihorrea in the findings and more prominence for facts which are found to be mistaken or misleading. Every project has a front page with information, so should every dispute which merits the attention of Arbcom. Disputees will often refuse to participate in such a way but where then do neutral editors come in? Right there. They run the show. It doesn't seem as busy on Arbcom as a year or more ago but I am sure you still have some pile-ups in the works. I would like very much to see a non-statement oriented page of evidence coming from the Ireland naming case, purely for adequate reference purposes. They certainly wont do it now, but maybe if a long time ago Arbcom had suggested it to them... ~ R.T.G 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Statement by Scolaire

To clarify, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration was not created at the instruction of ArbCom, or as a consequence of the Ireland article names case. It was created by Gnevin on 31 October 2008 to - believe it or not - improve collaboration. The Ireland naming disdcussion moved there on 4 February 2009. --Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the originator has never clarified his request, and as he seems to have lost interest – not only in this request, but in the whole Ireland Collaboration/Ireland naming project – I think ArbCom should close this ASAP. --Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recused - I have participated in the Ireland naming content dispute as an editor. Steve Smith (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Although the creation of the Ireland Collaboration WikiProject was a consequence of the Ireland article names case, nothing in the decision requires that the project fulfill any particular role. As far as I'm concerned, the community is free to determine what, if anything, it wishes to do with the project going forward. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what we're being asked to do here. The WikiProject, no matter how it got started seems to aim for collaboration, as is typical of WikiProjects. What the community decides to do with it and how the community participates in it is really up to them. If you're suggesting that the project is being used to continue the naming debate, I'd suggest that you simply ignore it as its been made clear that the subject will not be reopened at this time. Shell babelfish 16:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Use WikiProjects for what they're meant--improving the articles without all the bickering and POV-pushing that results in a never-ending stream of Ireland related issues being brought to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the other arbitrators who have commented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong (March 2010)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Asdfg12345 at 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
Falun Gong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) banned from editing Falun Gong and related article or template content for six months. See AE thread.  Sandstein  22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment action requested

  • I argue that the sanction was mistaken and ask that it be rescinded.

Statement by Asdfg12345

Sandstein said he banned me from editing Falun Gong articles for three reasons: “edit-warring (less aggressively than some of his opponents, but still), single purpose account (editing only FG topics) and advocacy (editing only to present FG more favorably)”

I will respond to these points with explanation and diffs.

1: On the edit warring charge.
I have had a policy of 1RR for a long time now. I think the only time I broke it was shown in the complaint against me; I crossed 1RR a couple of times then. That was under the circumstance that the other editor had ignored a consensus, derived from an RfC, which supported what I had suggested from the beginning. I felt justified, but in hindsight would be more careful. I’m not aware of any other edit warring on my part—none was presented in the original AE—and it is my intention to maintain the 1RR policy and not revert at all when it can be avoided. I try to always discuss things cogently and civilly. I do not edit war, do not intend to edit war, and know edit warring is bad.

2: On the single purpose account charge.
Since being banned I have taken a broader interest in other topics related to Chinese politics and governance. Whether I edit Falun Gong articles or not, I will continue to edit other articles unrelated to Falun Gong.

I note that the page on SPAs is not a policy item, but an essay. Of course, Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and advocates coming to push their POVs should be shown the door. I am here to help build this encyclopedia on the topics that I know about and that interest me, not as an advocate of an outside cause. I know the rules and play by them, and I want to build professional articles on the subjects I edit. (Though I’ve also been accused of “wikilawyering” when citing policy or providing sources to support my views.)

3: On the advocacy charge.
I do not and have not edited only to present Falun Gong more favourably. Most of my ideas for improvement, and many of my edits, are not structured along the lines of favourable/unfavourable, which I think is most often an unproductive dichotomy for categorising edits or editors. That said, it may appear that many of my edits make Falun Gong look favourable because a lot of the information which paints Falun Gong in an unfavourable light, whether reliably sourced or not, or in accord with due weight or not, is already in the articles, or has already been added by other editors. Making Falun Gong look favourable is not my purpose for editing Wikipedia, and I of course know the job of Wikipedia isn’t to paint Falun Gong in a favourable light—I don’t support including material just because it is perceived favourable to Falun Gong, and excluding material just because it is perceived as unfavourable. Making this accusation has become a common way of deflecting attention from the issues at hand onto the individual raising the problem.

Here is a small collection of edits meant to counter the idea that I’m editing Wikipedia to promote a pro-Falun Gong point of view:

  • Here I removed some effusive praise for Falun Gong that was inappropriate for the lead of an article. Here a paragraph of defense of Falun Gong’s founder’s financial situation.
  • Here I reverted what appeared to me an attempt to replace material critical or derisive of Falun Gong’s teachings with material that did not include such remarks. This was cited by Enric Naval as an example of how I “remove criticism,” but the opposite is true. I initially wrote that section summarising the views disparaging of Falun Gong's teachings.
  • Here is one edit in a section that I wrote about the debate about psychiatric abuse of Falun Gong practitioners in China, including the voices that were more sympathetic to the stance of the Chinese Communist Party. Previously I had also outlined the CCP's claims against Falun Gong, including phrases like "...the practice has exploited spiritual cultivation to engage its practitioners in seditious politics. They also allege that manipulation via their "lies and fallacies", Falun Gong "caused needless deaths of large numbers of practitioners"" etc. none of which I considered unusual to have done.)
  • Here I got a barnstar from my sparring partner, Ohconfucius. (He must have figured I can’t be all bad, then).
  • Here an editor uninvolved in the Falun Gong pages took the initiative to defend me in a discussion: "I know the Asdfg12345 has edited things other than this; while his edits may be 90% FLG-related, I know he's also worked on other general Chinese culture pages (not to mention he once AfD'ed Masanjia Labor Camp, which is not something you'd expect from someone who is a blind FLG follower, given that pretty much all of these RTL-related articles are anti-China")
  • Here are some of the edits, I made to the main Falun Gong article before I was banned. These edits were cited as an example of how I’m a POV-pusher when I numbered them all and asked for discussion before they be removed. They were removed without discussion. Then I added them back, and they stuck (above are the second round). It’s not that I only put in things I believe. I don’t believe some of that is true, some of it depicts Falun Gong negatively too, which I have never opposed, but it’s from reliable sources and in that context is relevant.
  • Here are some of the recent proposals I have made (while banned from editing those pages) for improving the pages. I haven’t put on a special show of neutrality since being banned to curry favour. If that is pro-Falun Gong advocacy then I have a lot more reflection to do than I thought. Several of those posts were simple exercises in research, like finding how many sources categorise Falun Gong as "qigong," and how many as "new religious movement" etc. Some of the ideas were ignored anyway.
  • The above are just a sample after a quick scan of my contributions to Falun Gong articles.

Final remarks
Those are just some examples. I wrote a long response to the arguments presented by Enric Naval that attempted to show that I am a tendentious editor who lavishes praise on Falun Gong and deletes anything perceived negative. Most of the complaint and belated response is straightforward, I think, except the second complaint. That is more complex. The quickest way to sum it up, though, is to see the two RfCs I started, and note that the opinion of the uninvolved party was exactly what I had been saying. There was a second RfC because Simonm223 ignored the first.

When writing this, I made a choice to say little about the editing dynamics on the pages, the issues surrounding Falun Gong and how they may relate to Wikipedia, perceived biases on the part of some editors, which usually dominate discussion on this subject. Based on some of the unwelcoming remarks to newcomers though, I think the environment will have to improve to avoid further litigation.

I think my being banned was a mistake, and I hope above to have shown why. I have learned from the experience, and will continue to cultivate a more nuanced approach to editing Wikipedia, including doing better with research, and editing a wider variety of articles. I feel like I have gotten some perspective in this month, thought about the issues, and so decided to request an amendment. Please advise if further evidence would be helpful in deciding my case. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully, --Asdfg12345 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughtful remarks on the subject from an outside editor: [10][11]

  • Steve Smith and SirFozzie, the discretionary sanctions page says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." I was given no such opportunity. My dispute is, or was originally, mainly with the substance of the charges, and I responded to them as best I could above (it would be of some small comfort if I knew that the people assessing this had checked the diffs and considered whether the three problems actually existed or not). However, this procedural point is rather important if justice is to be served. The ban was made under the circumstance that I was not "given a warning" or "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take." That means it violated the terms under which these discretionary sanctions are supposed to be imposed.
  • Maunus, I have never meant to give anyone mental grief. I think {user|PelleSmith} stopped editing the pages after encountering the intransigence of several anti-Falun Gong editors. Making RfCs and Noticeboard posts are legitimate ways of attempting to resolve disputes, as far as I understand. I've just tried to edit and discuss issues on Wikipedia in good faith, backed up by strong research. I hold that in nearly all cases disputes can be brought back to the reliable sources and resolved through good research. Some of the issues involved in this subject are complex and specific, and it takes some time to resolve. As far as I understand I have followed all the rules and been civil nearly all the time. Should I be banned for assiduity? --Asdfg12345 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could understand how this was a reasonable use of admin discretion, given the evidence above, and lack of evidence for the opposing views which were the reasons for the ban. I find it extremely confusing that arbitrators think my case is not only "comfortably within the reach of enforcement discretion" but that the "decision appears reasonable" as well. And there is no way to actually determine whether they have evaluated the case on its own merits or not; they fail to comment on the evidence or elaborate on the rationale of the case.

Sandstein's rationale for banning me makes three claims that are provable/disprovable. They are specific claims, the truth value of which can be evaluated objectively. I was said to have edit warred, but the only evidence for that is breaking one revert of the same content within 24 hours, after having sought a third party opinion that was ignored; I was said to only edit Falun Gong articles, something that is allowed, but my contributions indicate otherwise anyway; I was said to have edited only to make Falun Gong look favourable, but a string of diffs above also indicate that this is not the case. At the moment the process is slightly bewildering, and it's completely unclear as to what, precisely, I have done wrong. I have been given no ideas about how I'm supposed to "improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines," since no specific problems have been pointed out. If the arguments were a bit more slippery, it would be easier to justify them. For example, that I'm an inveterate Falun Gong apologist no matter what I do or say, editing other articles is just covering my tracks, and the times when I edit against Falun Gong, that's also to cover my tracks. Then I would be a class enemy. In that case, I wouldn't have much to say; it would be an impenetrable argument. But they are three quite specific claims, and I believe I have shown how they are untrue above. At the moment it just seems like I'm being treated as a class enemy without that being openly stated.

I suppose this format is very limited for being able to understand the processing of all the information that I presume is going on in people's brains.

My other concern, though, is that the major procedural flaw in how this case was decided still appears to have been overlooked: I was not "given a warning" before sanctions were imposed. The page outlining discretionary sanctions mentions this twice. Whatever the merits of the decision, I do not understand how sanctions which didn't follow the rules of how they were meant to be applied can be upheld.

I could not think of a more effective process for making someone get a sense that their rights had been tossed aside and due process ignored. If we want to carry the working logic forward, given that I am such a bad egg who would not even benefit from a clear explanation of how they can improve before being banned, or precisely what they have done wrong, or even deserve to be accorded due process, why not just ban me from Falun Gong articles forever? Why would six months make any difference? And why should I be able to edit the talk pages? At least then there would be some consistency in the autocracy. Whatever the decision, to whoever can give a clear, reasoned, response as to how Sandstein's three arguments are still valid in light of my response, and answer my complaints about due process, I would be grateful.--Asdfg12345 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

By "class enemy," broadly speaking I mean someone who is to be punished for who they are, not for what they have done. I say that because it appears to be the most useful model for understanding the current situation in my view, based on the discussion and respect accorded to evidence and process so far. --Asdfg12345 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion (posted from SirFozzie's talk)

I won't apply for any kind of community appeal, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time, my time, and the time of other editors and admins. I saw an exchange between Shell Kinney and Olaf Stephanos which makes the situation very clear. I had thought that the policies were like a book of law that you just had to stick to and keep within. But it's actually much more about perceptions, social capital, and branding. And nonconformists may have extraordinary measures applied to them. Never mind when propaganda comes from editors who are integrated into Wikipedia, and "outsiders" wish to fix things and explicitly follow all relevant rules when doing so. If you are seen as an advocate, especially for a perceived NRM (but not for science) you are not welcome. It doesn't matter if you are reasonable and law-abiding or not. This is probably just a necessary evil and compromise given Wikipedia's openness and potential for real bad guys to exploit the system. I maintain that I am not one of the bad guys, have kept strictly within policy, and have only ever wished for a professional treatment of Falun Gong. I have been polite nearly all the time, and frequently compromised, shared ideas, and worked with whoever was interested to build the pages. I do not want to see a whitewashing or exclusion of criticism. But doing Wikipedia properly means no propaganda, stringent sourcing, and inclusion of every significant perspective. All that is explicitly within Wikipedia's policies. I am not sure who will have the mettle to challenge the editors dedicated to promoting a negative view of Falun Gong - and their sympathisers - who are seen as part of the community. The silent consent to these ideologically motivated activities allows a page to go from this (11,200 words) to this (2,500 words).--Asdfg12345 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I'm not sure whether, in view of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal, this is the right venue for an appeal of a discretionary sanction, but if arbitrators would like my opinion about this request, I'll give it.  Sandstein  06:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

This request belongs to WP:AE.

The content disputes belong to the talk pages of articles (and, for the record, I will reply much better to requests about content that are not filled with bad faith assumptions cannot be easily interpreted[12] as being full of bad faith assumptions about how I'm trying to smear Falun Gong for some unspecified reason). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Olaf Stephanos

I will give my brief comment. Asdfg12345 has worked constructively on the Falun Gong articles for several years. He has always been polite towards other editors, and has taken a methodical approach to NPOV, ensuring that no relevant point of view is left out and that sources are given fair treatment. His insistence on high-quality sources has been categorical, and he has repeatedly made use of peer-reviewed journals and other reputable academic publications.

I am afraid that the involved administrators do not fully understand the delicate balance of the overall situation. The neutrality of the Falun Gong articles has seriously degraded after Asdfg12345 was blocked. As many of us have observed, this is not a simple matter of "neutral-minded" editors seeking to honestly work towards an article that gives fair and due weight to all relevant viewpoints—and who follow neutrality as methodology—against "biased" SPAs who only work to "promote their cause". Indeed, practically none of the editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles has taken a totally cool, dispassionate approach to the subject matter. This is partly due to the editing environment and its long-standing disputes that have never been resolved properly, in spite of numerous attempts. Yet, among the group of editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles over the last few years, Asdfg12345's track record is among the very cleanest. He has proactively initiated rational and argumentative discussion, and I feel that this may be one reason why some would rather see him blocked. Asdfg12345 has kept up the true spirit of Wikipedia against those who have a preconceived notion of how the Falun Gong articles should read, and who fail to regard the true depth of high-ranking research out there. Moreover, there are always those who'd rather cut the corners than engage in real discussion.

My opinion is that the Arbitration Committee, or other Wikipedia officials in positions of comparable power, should put in the effort to investigate the situation from a pragmatic perspective. I would argue that Asdfg12345's case is too susceptible to an individual administrator's impression of the subject matter as such; in other words, I strongly feel that the case has not been evaluated on its own merits. The produced evidence does not warrant a block, and a six month topic ban is simply inconceivable. Just take a look at Asdfg12345's edit history: it can only prove that he is here to truly construct an encyclopedia. Even though his focus has been on the Falun Gong articles and related subjects in the past, his contributions have been extremely solid, balanced, well-sourced, and transparent. He is a real expert, and these articles and their informed readers sorely miss him. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Comment by previously involved user User:Maunus

Having previously involved in the diting of Falun Gong related articles I was acquainted with User:asdfg and his/her editing style. User:asdfg is very polite and forthcoming and never stoops to civilty violations or other kinds of overtly abusive or disruptive behaviour. However, I think there is every reason to maintain the ban on the reason of asdfg's being a clear instance of a Single Purpose Account - of the most tenacious variety. I arrived at Falun Gong with out any preconceived notions (except an interest in presenting the issue in a academically adequate manner from the POV of a sociologist of religion (if anything I was prepared to possibly have to defend the viewpoint of Falun Gong as minority religion as these are often prone to attacks from "anti-cult editors")) - I was soon so completely exhausted by the constant pressure and civil disruption (in the form of disregard for consensus, continued argument over issues already determined by consensus and different kinds of vexatious litigation (in the form of rfc's, etc.)) from asdfg and other openly pro-Falun Gong editors that I decided that continuing work on that article was not worth the costs to my mental health - I know that several other editors have had similar experiences. I believe that topic banning asdfg from Falun Gong related articles is the right way to protect wikipedias integrity and the mental health of its neutral-minded editors. In short, I believe that no amendment to this arbitration decision is required or warranted·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Asmahan (March 2010)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Nefer Tweety (talk) at 13:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
Asmahan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User requesting amendment
Nefer Tweety (talk)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan
Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Supreme Deliciousness is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should the user exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. SD is soliciting a meat puppet to do his editing on Asmahan where he is restrcited by Arbitration case.
  2. SD found guilty of meat puppetry and violating the arbitration restriction.
  3. SD places an open invitation to meat puppetry, again to evade his ban to which no other than Nableezy complies.
  4. Nableezy rushes to peform SD's edits using SD's specific references.
  5. Motion granting SD privilege to edit Talk pages of biographies with respect to ethnicity and nationality is voted down leaving SD with no such privilege.
  6. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 violations of 1RR through disruptive strike-through markups as a way around his revert restriction.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)
  1. Warning by user:CactusWriter "to stop editing Asmahan while on probation.", yet SD continues to edit Asmahan (3 times) in these diffs.
  2. Warning by user:Lankiveil told SD to stay "far, far, far away from the Asmahan article for the time being, if you don't want this unpleasantness to escalate further", yet SD continues to edit Asmahan (3 times) like this one.
  3. Warning by user:Lankiveil told SD to "avoid making any edits whatsoever that could even remotely be considered to be in violation of your topic ban.", yet SD makes those edits in reference to the nationality and ethnicity of persons: like this one, like this one, like this one.
  4. This and this warnings by user:Wizardman Wizardman explained that SD should avoid any possible borderline violations, like this one. SD makes the same sort of edits (3 times) to the Asmahan like this one.
Amendment action requested
Extend Supreme Deliciousness's ban to include talk pages and associated pages as per CactusWriter's suggestion, and to prohibit Supreme Deliciousness from interfering with other users' edits using disruptive markups such as strike-throughs.
Additional comments by editor filing amendment request
  1. Supreme Deliciousness is acting up again. He's filing an arbitration enforcement request against me, when he is clearly the guilty party. He's become too crafty at fooling the arbitrators and the system with his "borderline" violations and endless complaints that are a waste of time for all involved.
  2. On 30 December 2009, User:CactusWriter filed this AN/I report against SD for meat puppetry. SD was soliciting User:Nableezy to edit Asmahan on his behalf as a way around his ban from the Asmahan arbitration case. SD was found to have violated his ban and was blocked very briefly and clearly insufficiently.
  3. SD is now doing the same thing again on Omar Sharif; he is posting an open invitation to meat puppetry that immediately gets accepted by Nableezy. Again, he is posting the references for Nableezy on the Talk page and Nableezy is doing the editing using SD references, again as a way around his ban.
  4. SD is prohibited from influencing the nationality or ethnicity of a biography on Wikipedia. Not only is Omar Sharif a biography, it was also part of the Asmahan case as SD concurs and again, SD is using a meat puppet to do his editing of ethnicity and nationality in violation of his ban.
  5. In spite of all the warnings that SD has received against editing Asmahan, from CactusWriter, Lankiveil, and Wizardman, SD continues to edit Asmahan in a way that influences her ethnicity and nationality. more specifically, he has been the reason for the edit wars on both Asmahan (and now, Omar Sharif), as was pointed out in Cactus's complaint on AN/I.
  6. SD is not permitted to edit the Talk pages of biographies to influence their ethnicity or nationality. This privilege was voted down here. The privilege of editing the Talk pages was taken away from SD and therefore his edits on the Talk page of Omar Sharif were a violation.
  7. It is clear that Nableezy is using SD's specific sources to edit the article for SD, as per SD's original request on Asmahan. SD did not have to repeat the request Nableezy; Nableezy is complying anyway.
  8. It is clear that SD and Nableezy have learned from the meat puppetry lesson of December 2009 when they got caught, and they are now doing it in a more subtle way.
  9. I ask you to please take action, this time to extend Supreme Deliciousness's ban to include talk pages and associated pages, and to prohibit Supreme Deliciousness from interfering with other users' edits using distruptive markups such as strike-throughs, since he has been violating his edit bans so many times. Nefer Tweety (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Nefer Tweety filed this complaint at the enforcement page, my and other peoples reply's to these false allegations can be read there, no violation against anything was found, and it was closed. [13]

There has been no meatpuppet invitation, it was a misunderstanding. A neutral (Egyptian) editor had seen the arguing between me and AC and left this post at my talkpage when I first requested the arbitration. He tried to help and fix the dispute so that was why I contacted him and asked for his help. So I asked this neutral (Egyptian) editor to get involved and told him that it was totally up to him what he wanted to do, and I was misunderstood by the admin, and I have already been blocked for that edit, almost 2 months ago: [14]

At the Omar Sharif article, What have I done? While the Nefer Tweety account edit warred with numerous editors removing sourced info: 1 2 3 4 5 times.

And carrying out Arab Cowboys sockpuppets edits at several articles, for example: [15][16][17] Look at this and compare: [18] 30 edits in between, made by several editors and bots, but he doesn't care.


I have added sources to the Sharif talkpage: [19] Since that, several editors have expressed support for those sources and themselves added his Lebanese background to the article, Users Funkmonk [20], Leabnese Bebe [21], Lanternix [22] and Nableezy [23]. I have not told them to do anything. Am I supposed to get a harder restriction on me for adding sources to a talkpage? Have I violated my topic ban and restriction? or the principles of the case? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: The Nefer Tweety account had yesterday filed yet another enforcement request and he received a warning for it and it was immediately closed, he has also been blocked by an admin yesterday for carrying out Arab Cowboys sockpuppet edits.[24] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment - Nefer Tweety, your point #6 is incorrect: that a remedy including a specific allowance for talk page editing was rejected does not mean that talk page editing is prohibited. What matters is the motions that were passed, and none of those restrict SD's editing of talk pages. I'll comment more on this request in the next couple of days, once I've mulled some things over. Steve Smith (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance (March 2010)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Elonka at 07:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cases affected
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

# Remedy 1: "PHG (talk · contribs) 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."

Remedy 2: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended: "The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history is hereby rescinded. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last 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."


List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment

Statement by Elonka

The original topic ban was on PHG (talk · contribs), a user who has since changed his name to Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs). His original topic ban, placed in March 2008, prevented him from making any edits in the entire topic area of medieval or ancient history for one year. This ban was extended in April 2008 to also require that PHG use only English-language sources, and use a mentor (Angusmclellan) to assist with sourcing. Further problems were reported in July 2008.[25] See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance for a long list of statements from established editors who were expressing concerns about PHG's use of sources. PHG has two specific POVs that he's been pushing, for over two years now: (1) That the Mongols "conquered" Jerusalem in 1300, and (2) that there was an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. Actual mainstream history, is that Jerusalem may have been subject to a Mongol raid at one point, but was not conquered; and that though there were attempts towards alliance, the attempts were unsuccessful. The Arbitration Committee investigated PHG's behavior in 2007/2008, agreed that PHG was misusing sources, and banned him from the medieval history topic area for a year.

Officially, the topic ban expired in 2009, but now that the Franco-Mongol alliance article is up for a Good Article Nomination, In December 2008, PHG filed a new case, requesting that his topic ban be lifted. The result was that the topic ban was narrowed to just articles related to the Crusades and the Mongol Empire, but was extended for another year. This latter topic ban expired on February 2, 2010, and PHG (Per Honor et Gloria) has resurfaced, and is resuming old tactics: Cherry-picking sources, pushing the same old POVs, and attempting to restore the article to the kinds of things it said back in 2007 that led to the ArbCom case in the first place.[26] Of particular concern is that he is de-railing the GA nom,[27][28] by dragging back up his "there was an alliance" POV, insisting that the lead sentence of the article be re-written to say that there was an alliance. This is making GA review extremely complex, as we don't want to have to re-debate this entire thing over again.

One of the things that makes PHG's POV-pushing so damaging, is that he (usually) tends to stay very civil, and his edits always look well-sourced. However, when experienced editors go in and actually look at the information he's trying to add, it becomes clear that PHG is not fairly representing what the sources say, and that he's also pulling in questionable sources, such as fragments of statements from works that are centuries-old,[29] or fragments from footnotes of books that are from long out-of-date historians, or works that are of unclear provenance.[30] Repeated requests to PHG to desist have been made at the article talkpage, and at his user talkpage, by both myself (Elonka),[31][32] and PHG's mentor, Angusmclellan (talk · contribs).[33] PHG promised Angus in email that the problems were over, but then continued with disruptive actions,[34] which are escalating at the GA nom.[35] I did file a request at WP:AE to see if the ban extension could be handled by community consensus, but the thread was closed as non-actionable,[36] so I am bringing it here, and asking that the topic ban be reinstated for at least another year. Thanks, --Elonka 07:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(addendum) My apologies for confusion about case name. There have been two cases related to PHG: Franco-Mongol alliance, and then Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG. I had completely forgotten about the second case (it closed right around the time I went on a several month wikibreak). I've tried to rework the amendment to reflect the more recent (PHG) case, but kept the title of the amendment as "Franco-Mongol alliance" to keep the other links working. I have no objection if the clerks wish to re-name things for consistency, and sincerely apologize for any confusion. --Elonka 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is what seems to me a fairly clear example of the problem: PHG was under a topic ban from editing articles related to the Crusades and Mongol history. The nexus of the dispute is the Franco-Mongol alliance article, where he continues to try push an "alliance" POV, and misuse sources.
  • His latest topic ban expired on February 2.
  • On February 3, he created a new coatrack article at Timurid relations with Europe.
  • On February 4, he basically copy/pasted most of the new article into the Franco-Mongol alliance, with a {{main}} link to his new article.[37] This is a standard tactic of PHG's, creating a new article first, and then trying to use it to bolster POV information that he's adding to some other article, making it look like there was already an article on that topic on Wikipedia.
  • When the sources were actually checked, and the unsuitable ones removed (PHG continues to cherry-pick elements from long out-of-date sources), the information he was attempting to add basically boiled down to the current single sentence in the Franco-Mongol alliance article: "In the early 1400s, Timur (Tamerlane), resumed Timurid relations with Europe, attempting to form an alliance against the Egyptian Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire, and engaged in communications with Charles VI of France and Henry III of Castile,[113][114][115] but died in 1405.". (and can probably be boiled down further, it's just taking time to actually review PHG's frequently bad sources). Everything else PHG had tried to add (Christopher Columbus, Franco-Ottoman alliance) was either coatrack that was unrelated to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, or from unusable sources.
  • February 8, February 11, I asked PHG to stop editing the Franco-Mongol alliance article and the related Good Article Nomination nom.[38][39]
  • February 9, Mentor Angus pinged PHG via email.[40]
  • February 11, Angus reiterates, on-wiki, that PHG needs to stop.[41]
  • February 14, I informed PHG that I had filed the AE thread.[42]
  • February 16
    • 07:36, I informed PHG that I had filed this Request for Amendment to extend his topic ban.[43]
    • 08:29, PHG created Ruad expedition, another coatrack.
    • 08:30, PHG added it as a "main" link to the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[44]
  • (note also Talk:Ruad expedition, where there are clear objections to this unneeded new article)
I hope from the above it is clear that an extension of PHG's topic ban is the proper thing to do. When his last one expired on February 2, he immediately resumed POV editing on February 3, and is still fixated on the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Within a short period of time, his behavior has escalated to again creating coatrack articles. And remember that last time, it took us two years to repair the damage from all the articles he touched. He is not honoring his mentor's requests to stop. Can we please just extend his topic ban again? --Elonka 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, starting tomorrow, I will be on wikibreak until March 15, though should still be reachable by email. --Elonka 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Back from wikibreak. --Elonka 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(one month followup) Despite repeated reminders for over a month, PHG's mentor, Angus McLellan, has not yet posted a statement to this amendment, despite his placeholder below.

PHG-created image with the following problems:
(1) Undue weight to the concept of a Mongol raid to Jerusalem
(2) Using a "clash" mark to say that the Mongols had a battle in Gaza (when there was no such battle)
(3) Completely omitting any arrows about the Egyptian Mamluks (who successfully pushed back the Mongols)
(4) Naming the image "Franco Mongol offensive in the Levant", as though there were joint operations, even though the mainstream view of historians is that though there may have been attempts, there were no such combined operations.
As I (Elonka) am one of the primary editors dealing with PHG in this topic area, I have to admit to some frustration. Though PHG's POV-pushing on matters related to the Mongols is glaringly obvious to those who are familiar with the topic, I understand that to those not familiar with the subject matter, the situation may be somewhat confusing. I've been trying to find examples which make the situation more clear. For example, at Talk:Fall of Ruad#Map of 1300 operations there is a discussion about images. What is clear to me, is that PHG is attempting to use this article as an opportunity to insert an image, created by himself, which includes an arrow showing Mongol troop movements towards Jerusalem (even though Jerusalem isn't a key element of the article). This is part of a pattern of PHG-created images which show both this Jerusalem arrow, and apparent Mongol advances as far south as Gaza (see image at right). However, there was no armed clash at Gaza, the Jerusalem arrow is giving clear undue weight to the idea of a Mongol raid there (they raided several cities in Palestine for a period of a few months). A further POV problem with the image is that PHG focuses strictly on the troop movements of the Crusaders and the Mongols, but never shows the alternate view, of what the Egyptian Mamluks were doing as they advanced from the south and engaged (and defeated) the Mongols. PHG is all about the Mongol advance "towards Jerusalem", and not about the overall context, or what was going on with the other side of the engagement.

As far as what I think ArbCom should do at this point, it's pretty simple: Please extend PHG's topic ban on Crusades and Mongol articles, preferably indefinitely. If PHG wishes to participate on these articles, he can make suggestions on talkpages. The ArbCom may also wish to consider appointing a more engaged mentor, since Angus appears to have limited time to deal with PHG. --Elonka 16:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

One small point about the amendments being discussed: It's probably best to refer to PHG's current account name, Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs), or at least to make a note somewhere about the name change. --Elonka 21:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the name... Just as a nudge, can this be closed now? --Elonka 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Per Honor et Gloria

Nice trap! Elonka threatens me of Arbcom prosecution a few days ago [45] telling me "Do not edit it, do not participate at the talkpage, do not participate at the GA nom" at the Franco-Mongol alliance page, in itself a rather unethical threat (is an Administrator permitted to effectively impose an article ban through personal threat, especially when deeply involved?)... Then she nicely invites me to respond to her on that very page [46], I am stupid enough to answer to the invitation [47], and now she uses that as a justification to implement her initial threat. Isn't this wonderful?

My edits, my good humour, my civility, my sourcing

Altogether, I must have done about 20 edits to the Franco-Mongol page and its Talk Page in the last two weeks or so. I have been taking pains to make extremely well-sourced statements with mainstream academic online references so that all I write can be checked by anybody. No disputes, respecting the content of other contributors: Wikipedia editing at its best [48][49][50]. But no, Elonka seems to resent the very fact that I simply contribute, however professionally, to the Franco-Mongol alliance page, an article I created two years ago.

  • To use Elonka's own words, I tend to remain "very civil" because I do think it is important to be so, and to respect the others. I do tend to resent incivility or the callous treatment that some Administrators give to other users "Stop…." "Enough…": we are not cattle, we are not members of a boot camps or prisoners, just unpaid volunteers. As a gesture of goodwill, I have even made small presents to Elonka [51], explaining her several times that I wanted to please her and be her friend [52].
  • My sources "look good", because they are good: I remain very factual in my contribution and as often as I can link to scholarly online Google Book references so that everybody can check for themselves, and, if desired, can correct the Wikipedia content accordingly. I have learned to do this for contentious issues, so that the sources can be accessed by anyone who has doubts. You will see that virtually all online references in the Franco-Mongol article today were added by myself.
  • Isn't it strange, almost laughable, that I have been contributing lovingly more than 1085 articles to this encyclopedia, devoting 6 years of my life to this ideal of knowledge-sharing, obtaining 8 FAs [53], and 145 stringently-checked DYK articles [54], but that when it comes to articles Elonka claims ownership of, I become all of a sudden the worst of editors, only worthy of blames, blocks and negative comments?
Accusations based on misrepresentation of facts (Oh! Jerusalem! 1300)

Elonka has been forcing her point of view on the relationships between the Franks and the Mongols in the 13th century, attacking the main contributor on the subject (me) if my views did not fit hers.

Most significantly, she has attacked me strenuously for two years for claiming that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300. Elonka's problem now is that User:Srnec painstakingly studied the sources himself and strongly challenged her former interpretation, declaring that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [55] and that it can be said that they "took" and "held" the city [56]. It turns out that the raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources [57]. The historian Andrew Jotischki confirms that in 1300 "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan returned to Persia" (Jotischki p.249). Elonka herself has been forced to change her writing to the Mongols "probably" raided Jerusalem in 1300! [58]. She even had to apologize finally [59]. After pursuing me so harshly for so long for writing about the Mongols and Jerusalem in 1300, this is quite a change isn’t it? In light of her misrepresentations of historical facts, which she used to obtain a ruling against me, I think Elonka could become a little more humble in her views on history, but, no, all she can find is sending me here. The problem I believe is that Elonka makes very strong statements, and pursues other users harshly based on factually wrong premises. Just as she misrepresented facts for Jerusalem, there are many more instances where she takes such a stance, and you have to follow it, or else.

A rather unethical and unfair request

The Arbcom has formally determined that I could resume normal editing now, so, my intention is indeed to resume normal editing (see an example with Ruad expedition). I think if Elonka has issues with some of my contributions, she should just raise the issues, discuss them specifically, and resolve them according to Wikipedia rules, rather than make a rethoretical attack as above.

I think our responsibility as Wikipedians is to follow the sources punctiliously (I've become much better at that, and I'm now making sure all my contributions can be checked online whenever possible), and to make sure that power-hungry or drama-hungry individuals do not skew the facts too much. Best regards to all, and happy editing! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Response to SHELL KINNEY
Wrong dates
Shell claims that "despite his promise that he would stay away from the topic, PHG created an article coatrack just an hour later and inserted it into the Franco-Mongol alliance article". This is mistaken: I created Ruad expedition at 09:29, 16 February 2010 [60], and agreed to stop editing in the area about 10 hours later after being asked at 19:34, 16 February 2010 [61]. I would appreciate if the incorrect assertion could be removed.
Not "the same content"
Shell writes "he's created at least two additional articles to bolster his changes despite the same article content existing elsewhere". This not exact: Timurid relations with Europe has never existed anywhere else. For Ruad expedition, all the specifics of the expedition, a major event described in detail by such authors as Alain Demurger (a whole chapter, 20 pages), had disapeared from Wikipiedia. As of February 2, after two years, all that remained was:
"The Templars established a base on Ruad Island,[106] which was then used as a staging area, and a joint force of Cypriots, approximately half of which were from the various military orders, was sent to the island.[107] From there, raids were launched on Tortosa while the Cypriots awaited the arrival of the Mongols. However, the Mongols were delayed, and the Crusader forces ended up returning to Cyprus, leaving a garrison on Ruad. When the Mongols did arrive in February 1301, they were only able to engage in some minor raids before having to withdraw." Franco-Mongol Alliance article, Feb 2 [62]
...just a general statement, without anything specific, no mention of Jacques de Molay, numbers, etc, well, a few summary sentences.... which is fine as long as we can find somewhere else all the details of the expedition if we want (hence the need for a specific article on the subject). This is very different from the Siege of Ruad itself, which is the Mamluk-led offensive in 1302, and does only cover the end of the event. Content-wise, you will notice that this article is highly referenced on immediately-checkable online sources, from the best academic authors, so what's the problem??? In order to respect Elonka's drive to keep everything short and in summary-form in the main Franco-Alliance article, isn't the solution to go into details in sub-articles?
Not "snippets"
Shell wites "cherry pick statements from sources, misrepresent the source's meaning and base entire viewpoints on a snippet seen while searching Google Books". This is inexact: 99% of the time, the links I give to Google Books offer several pages of viewable material (example), so they are not just snippets, and allow to get a fair view of what the author is saying. Many times, I own the books myself, but I still offer the Google Books links as a courtesy to anybody who would like to check from it. I am quite meticulous in summarizing what the sources says, often to the point of paraphrasing. Please see for yourself. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
... and not "Google Books" only
I believe Google Books and Google Scholars are usefull sources to obtain significant insights into a given work, usually several pages at a time. They also allow immediate and direct checking by other contributors, which I believe is highly valuable on Wikipedia, especially for contentious subjects. Although I provide Google Book links whenever I can as a courtesy to others, I also many times own the books in question personnally. As of today, I am the owner of about 50 books in French and English on the subject of the Crusades/Mongols, a partial photograph of which I am attaching here. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


Response to ELONKA
"Coatrack" and "undue weight"
As anybody can see from my user profile, I am first and foremost a content provider. Good examples of the way I usually build an article could be Boshin war (civil war in Japan, and the rest of the world) or Paris Foreign Missions Society (this time, East-West interaction on the religious plane). These articles are highly factual (basically all the information I can get through books and online sources), lots of photographs (many of mine). That's basically the way I understand articles on Wikipedia, since I took to heart its ambition of being "the sum of all knowledge".
Now, I took the same approach for the Franco-Mongol alliance article , building it up to about 200k through my research France-Mongol alliance full version.
Since Elonka started to get involved into the matter, she has been effectively fighting against giving details of the relations of the Mongols and the West: if I put details into an existing article, she says it is UNDUE WEIGHT. That's how nearly all content about the Mongols disappeared from Louis IX of France, or most precise descriptions from the Franco-Mongol alliance article (about 100k worth). If on the contrary I put the details in a separate article, I get attacked for COATRACKing. If I had added my Ruad expedition content into the Franco-Mongol alliance article or the Siege of Ruad article, it would be gone already or attacked for Undue Weight, but as soon as I put it somewhere else it is claimed as Coatracking. Same thing for Timurid relations with Europe: it would have been claimed as Undue Weight had I put it into the Timur article, and all the details squashed into two lines of generic information.
So, the bottom line it that whether I introduce my "Mongols and the West" work in a large article, or create a separate article with it, I get attacked anyway.
I know the content itself is valuable, it is highly referenced, and suppressing it is contrary to the rules of Wikipedia: "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." Wikipedia:Summary_style
I believe Elonka simply tries to squash any detailed content about the Mongols and the West to uphold her view that no contacts occured, but this is clearly against what the sources say. I believe detailed information on the Mongols and the West belongs to Wikipedia, as long as it is published by reputable sources. To me this would simply defeat the purpose of this encyclopedia should it be suppressed. I only try to uphold this ideal of comprehensiveness on any given subject, and I can see no reason why reputable published information should be withheld simply because one person doesn't like it and bullies those who insert it. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Supposed POV content
So, let's look objectively at the supposedly POV content I added to the Franco-Mongol alliance article in the two weeks since my topic ban ended....
February 3: 4 lines about the perceptions of the Mongols by Asiatic Christians with refs [63].
February 4: 10 summary lines about Timurid relations with Europe with refs [64].
February 4: about 4 lines about Mongol-Hospitaller relations in 1281 with refs [65]
February 5: about 2 lines about Geoffrey of Langley with refs [66].
February 5: about 2 lines about the embassy of Isa Kelemechi with refs [67]
February 5: about 4 lines about the Mongol-Genoese joint construction of fleet with refs [68]
February 6": about 4 lines and refs about the Ruad expedition [69], with link to main article for details.
February 8": correction of an Elonka statement not present in source [70]
February 8: addition of the occupation of Jerusalem, following Elonka's recognition that it indeed "probably happened" [71]
February 11: 1 line about the size of the Samagar campaign [72]
February 11: correction of an Elonka statement not in source [73]
February 11: Correction of an Elonka statement not in given source [74]
These are basically the additions I made, with a few cosmetic changes and I think 2 or 3 more images. Content is short, compact, extremely factual, highly referenced with directly accessible online academic sources: top notch Wikipedia content I believe. This is what Elonka tries to portray as the worst possible of offenses. Please everyone, check for yourself. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Claims of Disruption
Elonka claims disruption from my part in the sporadic factual and referenced contributions I made to the Franco-Mongol alliance (addressed in the previous paragraph). I think her claim of disruption is simply not confirmed by fact. She also claims "disruption" on the GA nomination... well please just check for yourself: I believe my few contributions there have been extremely civil and constructive: [75]. "Disruption" on the Talk Page... well check for yourself: [76]. Unfortunately, I would say the actual disruption started when Elonka again resumed her use of the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk Page as a sort of Attack page against me, a practice which I sense is against the rules of Wikipedia [77][78], and which immediately triggered the concern of several editors [79], [80]. May I request that Elonka be warned against misrepresenting facts so much, and making false accusations in such an aggressive way? Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of important referenced material
Now that the article Ruad expedition (now Fall of Ruad), after being attacked by Elonka as a Coatrack and POV article that should be deleted [81], has finally been fully recognized as a legitimate article in its own right [82], I am sorry to report that Elonka is removing from it referenced mentions from the best sources (Peter Jackson, Malcolm Barber, provided with Google Books online links, or Alain Demurger, now available in English translation through Profile Books, London, and visible through Amazon.com) of the intention or agreement of the Crusaders to cooperate with the Mongols. These deletions of important referenced material are hidden within sweeping rewrites (usually under the generic "Copy editing" label), and are of course not mentioned in the edit summaries:
  • 22:48, 1 March 2010 edit [83]: suppression of "The aim of the Ruad expedition was to link up with the Mongol ruler Ghazan", directly sourced from Barber, p.22 Jackson, p.171. Also in Demurger The Last Templar p.95 ISBN 9781846682247: "Molay and his Order, together with the other Christian forces of Cyprus and Armenia, were wholly engaged in trying to recover the Holy Land, in association with the Mongol king of Persia, Ghazan. And the Templar's two year occupation of the island of Ruad, off Tortosa, on the Syrian coast, must be seen solely in this light."
  • 00:28, 2 March 2010 edit [84]: suppression of "probably in order to reaffirm his commitment to the military alliance with the Mongols, Henry II set up a large naval raiding operation." sourced from Demurger, The Last Templar p.100 ISBN 9781846682247: "It was doubtless to make the unity between the Mongols and Franks evident to both Christians and Mamluks that raids by a Christian fleet on Egypt and Syria were organized, beginning 20 July (...) Above all, this expedition made manifest the unity of the Cypriot Franks, and through a material act, put the seal on the Mongol alliance", also similarly in Jackson, p.171.
  • 00:28, 2 March 2010 edit [85]: deletion of the fact that during the July 1300 Crusader naval raid "Ghazan's ambassador Isol the Pisan onboard, raised the Il-Khan's banner.", a fact referenced from Demurger: "with ... the Khan's ambassador, whose banner was raised on the boats", Alain Demurger, The Last Templar p.100 ISBN 9781846682247
Etc... Such information is central to the article, as it explains the whole rationale and outlook behind these Crusader campaigns, and probably cannot be sourced any better... I wonder if systematically deleting referenced information one dislikes is indeed the proper way to edit neutraly on Wikipedia? Such deletions are, I am afraid, rather un-encyclopedic, and seem to participate to a strange desire to eliminate at all cost any concrete examples of collaboration between Crusaders and Mongols, in spite of the facts reported by the most reputable sources. I suggest Elonka should be requested to stop deleting referenced material from Wikipedia, and rather be encouraged to balance material she wishes to object to with other sources when needed. This would go a very long way towards resolving disputes.
An E-mail promise???
Elonka wrote "PHG promised Angus in email that the problems were over, but then continued with disruptive actions"... well, this statement is quite misleading and untrue. Elonka's accusation is based on an email communication she has not seen, and she only makes conjectures regarding its content. I can say in all transparency, that the e-mail in question only responded to Angus’ worries about the specific discussion regarding the Mongols in Syria in 1300, and that I was glad to announce to Angus that the problem was solved because finally Elonka had recognized the "probable" presence of the Mongols in Jerusalem in 1300, after 2 years claiming the contrary (and attacking me for it). This is when I wrote with great excitement and relief "Elonka, this is wonderful" [86]. On that occasion, I also reaffirmed to Angus that I had no intention to be dragged into ridiculous disputes and that, to achieve that aim, I wanted to make contributions that remained extremely factual and well documented. I think Elonka should refrain from making conjectures about, and misrepresenting the content of, private e-mails she has not seen, and especially to treat these conjectures as fact to make quite grave accusations...
How about turning the page?
It seems everytime now I am involved in a discussion, Elonka just comes up with a description of the case that was put up in the past against me: [87], [88], [89], [90], making disparaging comments [91][92], and even using this as a justification to set arbitrary rules against me [93] to the surprise of several fellow contributors [94], [95]. Is it fair practice to keep rehashing and advertising past sentences, most especially after my topic ban is now over? I thought that once you're freed from serving time, you're not supposed to be ostracized based on your past experience? I also think you're not supposed to make an argument on article content just by making personal attacks and saying ("Oh, but you know, PHG so and so...") Isn't this a bit abusive? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Campaign map... attempting to create a problem when there is none
Latest version of campaign map [1].
Elonka criticizes a map I created (Latest post above), but I am afraid this is attempting to create a problem where there is none.
1) This map represents the campaigns of the Franks, Mongols and Armenians, who were attempting to coordinate their action in the Levant in 1299-1300. According to Elonka this map would be "POV" as it does not represent the movements of the rival Mamluk troops. Well, representing Mamluks movements would be fine, although it would make the map quite heavy and hard to read. The title of the article being Ruad expedition, showing these campaign movements was quite relevant, although the new title Fall of Ruad blurs the focus a bit. Overall, I agree a map of Mamluk movements would be fine as well. But in effect, by removing this map from the article Fall of Ruad, Elonka has removed [96] the only map that shows Frankish troop movements in 1299-1300, thereby denying a central illustration of what the article is about.
2) Elonka criticizes the fact that Gaza was illustrated by a "clash" mark (she uses an old map, before I made modifications to it almost 3 weeks ago [97]). This refers to the occupation of Gaza by the Mongols 1299-1300, something widely reported by historians (Singh, p.39, Amitai-Preiss p.33...). I don't mind whether this occupation (several months) is represented by a "clash" mark or not, so I readily took it away 3 weeks ago already in order to please Elonka [98]. It is strange for Elonka to bring this up again (a very minute issue) as if it were a "problem". I had earlier also modified the size of the arrow to Gaza following a request by Elonka [99], as well as added the names of Ruad and Tortosa, also at her request [100].
3) Elonka critizes the fact that Jerusalem is shown in this map, as well as an arrow pointing to it. Jerusalem being such an an important and symbolic city in Palestine, I think it is quite normal that it be shown, as on most of the maps of the period, and it is also almost systematically described/highlighted in the historical accounts of the Mongol foray into Palestine (for example Jotischsky, p.249, but also Demurger etc...). I really don't see why a map should avoid depicting what most historians mention and agree on. Elonka is here using outdated data (an old map before improvement through discution), and disputing the illustration of events that the majority of historians of the period agree about and mention (the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem), in order to argue against my map-making contribution.
The Elonka-developed and approved map [2] displays identical Mongol movements.
4) Above all, let me highlight the fact that the depiction of the Mongol campaign in the map I created is essentially similar to the depiction of the same campaign in a map Elonka has jointly developed with User:MapMaster [101] (shown to the right), warmly approved by her [102] and inserted by herself into the Ruad expedition article for the last 3 weeks [103], which exactly displays the very characteristics she is now accusing me of:
  • the Mongol advance to Gaza
  • the arrow to Jerusalem (with the only difference of a question mark over the arrow, which is not relevant anymore now that Elonka has acknowledged the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem [104])
  • the supposedly "POV" lack of illustration of the Mamluks counter-offensive.
  • the usage of such a map in the Ruad expedition article.
I believe this clearly shows that Elonka is accusing me of things which she actually endorses, approves and implements. How on Earth can what she approves and supports when she is the one to contribute, become damnable when I am the contributor? Elonka thinks and knows that this illustration of the Mongol campaigns in 1299-1300 is exact and legitimate, but nevertheless is trying to deceive Arbcom into believing the contrary.
I am afraid this makes it obvious that this last accusation by Elonka is neither exact nor fair. Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Request to dismiss

I would like to propose that the present attempt to reopen this case without any clear ground to do so is simply an attempt to use the system and the threat of Arbcom prosecution as a tool to restrict my editorial rights, inspite of the formal end of my topic ban and the quality of my contributions [105]. I guess this is what is generally called "gaming the system" and "disruption" on Wikipedia. For example, the "POV" accusations about creating the Ruad expedition article have finally boiled down to a discussion about finding the most adequate title [106]. The "COATRACK" accusations about creating the article Timurid relations with Europe are finally receiving no significant support [107]. Then, Elonka's 4th motion [108] to change the article name at Franco-Mongol alliance seems like a rehashing of old discussions, inspite of the fact that this has been resolved three times in the past: 1: Request for move, 2: Poll for renaming the article, 3: Article title, seemingly a rather examplary case of disruption. As support is not forthcoming, e-mail canvassing is probably going to be called to the rescue now. These series of actions seem to me to boil down to undue maneuvering, demonstrably false accusations, and the incessant repetition of rather strident personal attacks, and only result in disrupting the system, losing everybody's time and good humour, damaging editor motivation, and giving a poor image of Wikipedia. I suggest this case be dismissed and that such behaviour be warned against. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Final rejection

Elonka's 4th motion in 2 years to change the title of the Franco-Mongol alliance article has again been rejected by the community [109], as I think should be this request for amendment. Please let there be some justice on Wikipedia. Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 03:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The bottom of it

Let me quote (and provide a readable link to) Jotishcky Crusading and the Crusader States p.239, whom I believe admirably summarizes the facts of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Claiming that there were only "attempts at an alliance" is misleading and a contradiction of historical facts. The alliance, or a succession of alliances (that is, agreements to achieve a common goal) indeed took place, but the results were without dispute very little (a few combined operations and a few coordinated strategic movements):

"In 1262 Hulagu, the Mongol leader of the Near East, offered an alliance to Louis IX. An uneasy series of temporary alliances with the Mongols followed in the second half of the 13th century, but it was always an unequal relationship, and nothing substantial came out of them" Jotishcky Crusading and the Crusader States p.239

Best regards to all, and so much for the encyclopedic respect of historical facts. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pet theory?

For those who seem to think that the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols is a pet theory, please just check the following quotes by major historians: Andrew Jotischki in Crusading and the Crusader States, who describes a succession of alliances over half a century, which ended with very little results (only a few combined actions, a few coordinated strategic moves that ended in military defeat against the Mamluks):

  • "In 1262 Hulagu, the Mongol leader of the Near East, offered an alliance to Louis IX. An uneasy series of temporary alliances with the Mongols followed in the second half of the 13th century, but it was always an unequal relationship, and nothing substantial came out of them" (Andrew Jotischki Crusading and the Crusader States p.239)

J.R. Phillips in The medieval expansion of Europe, who describes "some kind of alliance or collaboration" that lasted half a century:

  • "1248 may be taken as the year in which an alliance between the Mongols and Europe was first seriously considered by both parties. From then until the early fourteenth century some kind of alliance or cooperation was an almost constant feature of their relations." (The medieval expansion of Europe by J. R. S. Phillips, p.118)

We shouldn't be making an amalgam of two different concepts: an alliance and its outcome. I believe this is exactly how we should explain the Franco-Mongol alliance: agreements to ally over a period of about half a century, but failure to properly coordinate and ultimate military defeat. I proposed at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance the following definition of the alliance, which could be used at the introduction sentence:

"The Franco-Mongol alliance was ... a diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols against the Muslim Mamluks between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, which led to numerous attempts at collaboration, and ultimately ended in military failure."

Isn't this a very honest and balanced description, which fully incorporates the difficulties of the subject? Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 17:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Domer48

  • As was pointed out here the above remedy has expired. As the editing restrictions against PHG expired long ago, so I don't see that this is a legitimate venue for discussion. How can you look for an amendment to a remedy which has expired? If there is a problem, a new ArbCom decision (or other form of dispute resolution) is needed to resolve them. --Domer48'fenian' 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • PHG is the author of nine featured articles! This is a content dispute folks! Stop defending an Admin who is actively involved and using this forum as a means of removing a productive editor. An Admin with a history of questionable actions and honesty who has not provided any supporting evidence and neither has her side kick. Welcome to the FOX NEWS version of wikipedia! --Domer48'fenian' 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Latebird

I have seen ample justification for the original topic ban and its extension. Now immediately after it has expired (2. February 2010 is not "long ago" as claimed by Domer48 above), I had to observe that the same old problems resurface virtually unchanged. In fairness, the one visible change is that he dresses his POV pushing (and even his personal attacks against Elonka) in very polite words now, where in the beginning he could be highly caustic. But that is really just sugar-coating on the actual problem. As strange as it seems, PHG appears entirely unable to view historical topics from a neutral distance, and to look at his pet theories in the light of a larger context. Over several years, all arguments by others have washed right off him without leaving any traces of insight. So even after two years of restriction, I still see an ongoing need for damage control. Since a change of attitude seems highly unlikely, I will support an indefinite extension of his topic ban. --Latebird (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Shell Kinney

Honestly, I was about ready to bring this myself having seen PHG's edits to Franco-Mongol Alliance over the past week. The views being expressed are identical to those from the first case which ArbCom reviewed and found to be a complete misrepresentation of sources. This behavior not only hasn't stopped in relation to the Mongols, but apparently is spilling into other areas. It is not appropriate, no matter how well intentioned, to cherry pick statements from sources, misrepresent the source's meaning and base entire viewpoints on a snippet seen while searching Google Books - PHG doesn't seem to have caught on to this issue and is still just as reluctant to change his behavior when its pointed out as a problem.

Again, as in the first case, we see PHG scrambling to create additional coatracks for his theory once he's caught - he's created at least two additional articles to bolster his changes despite the same article content existing elsewhere (without PHG's novel spin on things). It took over two years for us to clean up this mess last time folks, can we please not let this get started again? I applaud PHG's intentions and hard work as an editor, but since he can't seem to understand the problems with the way he uses sources, especially when it comes to historical articles, and since his mentor has apparently not been able to resolve this issue, we need to stop this disruption to the project.

I think its also important to note that despite his promise that he would stay away from the topic, PHG created an article coatrack just an hour later after posting his response here (and after requests by his mentor to stop) but before the actual promise to stop editing in the area and inserted it into the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Again, this is an exact repeat of the behavior that caused the issue to get all the way to Arbitration in the first place. Shell babelfish

Hi Shell, you claim that "despite his promise that he would stay away from the topic, PHG created an article coatrack just an hour later and inserted it into the Franco-Mongol alliance article.". This is factually incorrect. You are mistaken on the date stamps: I created Ruad expedition at 09:29, 16 February 2010 [117], and agreed to stop editing in the area about 10 hours later, after being asked here, at 19:34, 16 February 2010 [118]. Could you kindly remove the incorrect assertion? Thank you! (please delete this post once this is solved) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think its also interesting that the problems resumed on Feb 3, one day after the ban from the second case expired. The two coatrack articles I mentioned above are Timurid relations with Europe and Ruad expedition. Shell babelfish 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Despite not editing, PHG is still managing to push his pet theories [119]. Shell babelfish 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A few updates to clarify the concerns here and respond to PHG's comments:

  • The day after his restriction ended, PHG returned to push the same novel theories as in the Arbitration case. His claims that people have bent to his position are incorrect. As you can see in the diff he provided, Adam agrees that the Mongols went as far as Jerusalem, a fact which was never in doubt. This is not a change from previous discussions, yet PHG has claimed this as a victory above. This is a serious concern because "reached and went through" is a far cry from the words PHG wants to use including "conquered" or "occupied". Its also interesting to note that there were no Francs in Jerusalem at this time so regardless of how inappropriate his sourcing and understanding of the sources is, this information has absolutely no business in the article anyways(but he can't get it in elsewhere so he's pushing here).
  • PHG is basing contentious statements or even entire paragraphs on an excerpt from Google Books. He defends this practice above, maintaining that the page or less he's able to view (again, note he does not have access to the full source) gives him enough context to make inferences about the source and present the theories. What is happening in reality is that PHG is often misunderstanding or misusing the source due to a)looking for phrases that support his theories instead of evaluating the source as a whole b)only getting a small part of the source leading him to poor conclusions.
  • PHG still has problems with coming to a conclusion first and finding sources he believes support that conclusion. This frequently leads him to completely misrepresent sources. One of the key clues as to when PHG is sourcing things well and when he is trying to support a novel theory is the number of sources used. Compare his productive articles elsewhere, where he uses a fairly normal number of sources to his latest attempt at Franco-Mongol alliance where he used 10 sources to support a single sentence which was later soundly denounced by every other editor participating for using ancient sources, unreliable sources and sources that did not say what PHG claimed. This did turn out well, but I think asking the community to continue to monitor every edit PHG makes to this topic area is too much. This wastes hours and hours as editors are required to get a hold of actual sources, many extremely rare, only to find that PHG has completely misrepresented the reference.
  • Mentoring does not seem to be solving the problem. This started again immediately after the ban was lifted despite a long period of mentoring in which PHG should have learned more appropriate methods of sourcing. PHG has ignored the requests of his mentor (who had to be pinged by another editor each time) to stop this behavior. Clearly, Angus is not reviewing PHG's sources. Angus also hasn't bothered to respond to this request, despite having quite a few weeks and being reminded more than once.

Obviously PHG has been able to work very well in other topic areas. Perhaps he does not have as many preconceived notions elsewhere, or simply isn't as invested in the outcome. Whatever the case, once again many hours of contributor time have been lost trying to resolve this issue which again is complete and utter misuse and misrepresentation of sources to achieve an unsupportable POV. Shell babelfish 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case the Arbs don't catch the irony, that's the same picture PHG posted in 2007 - the same books he misused repeatedly (which was quite soundly proven in the case). Note especially that not a single one of the sources PHG has used lately show up on his "bookshelf". In particular, if PHG does own a copy of books that are now hundreds of years old and is not using the snippets from Google Books, I welcome him to take a picture of THAT. Shell babelfish 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I've just updated the image with some of my more recent acquisitions: just hit the "Refresh" button. Best regards! Per Honor et Gloria ✍
More misdirection; all you've done is add in the book you have on the Crusades. Can you show me:
  • Helen J. Nicholson (2001). The Knights Hospitaller, p.45. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 0851158455.
  • Michael Prestwich (1988). Edward I, p.331. University of California Press. ISBN 0520062663.
  • Richard A. Gabriel (2002). The great armies of antiquity, p.343. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0275978095.
  • Andrew Jotischky (2004). Crusading and the crusader states, p.249. Pearson Education. ISBN 0582418518.
  • J. R. S. Phillips (1998). The medieval expansion of Europe, p.127ff. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198207409.
  • Christopher Tyerman (1996). England and the Crusades, 1095-1588, p.239. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226820130.
  • Colin Morris (2005). The sepulchre of Christ and the medieval West: from the beginning to 1600, p.296. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198269285.
That is the bulk of the sourcing used for your latest addition to the article, none of which appear in your image. Its also interesting to note that the addition used Jackson's "The Mongols and the West" to support your statement, despite having repeatedly been told that you are misrepresenting what Jackson says - so much so that it was specifically noted in the case against you. All of this handwaving, in an attempt to make this issue go away, does nothing to resolve the meat of the problem. Shell babelfish 17:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shell. I'm afraid your list is a bit selective: by very far the source I have most used recently is Alain Demurger The Last Templar ISBN 2228902357, the English translation of the fantastic Jacques de Molay (which by the way also visible in large part on Amazon), and also quite a bit of Setton The Papacy and the Levant, which are right there snuggly inserted in my photogenic book pile. I also own Andrew Jotischky Crusading and the crusader states and J. R. S. Phillips The medieval expansion of Europe, although at another location. Hope this helps! My very best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I pulled that "selective" list directly from your last insertion into the article. Are you saying that of that list, you have read only Jackson, Setton and Demurger? May I ask why you thought it was appropriate to list those other sources as well? Shell babelfish 20:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. For example, for Jotischky I provide a Google Book link Jotischki, p.249, and I also happen to own the book. For Nicholson, I provide a Google Books link Nicholson p.45, and don't own the book. My sources are either books I own or books I don't own, and I try to provide a Google Book link whenever possible. Of course, I always read the sources I use in an article, either my own books, sometimes books at a bookstore or a library, or book excerpts, usually several pages long, from Google Books or sometimes Amazon. But at the very least, about 80% of the references I have used in the last few months have been painstakingly provided by me with readable links to Google Books so that anybody can check content, either from books I own or I don't own, and the rest of my references would be from books I own but are not accessible online. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And yet oddly, the ones you own don't appear in your photograph? I'm sorry to hear that you've read these sources because that puts us back to either unintentionally or deliberately manipulating and misrepresenting sources. Shell babelfish 14:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, here are some more of my books Shell. Now, you're making general accusations about "manipulating" or "misrepresenting" sources. Could you highlight some specifics within the boundaries of this case (let say February 1 to February 15)? I'm truely interested. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The easiest way to show this is to look at a statement you made from today:

Claiming that there were only "attempts at an alliance" is misleading and a contradiction of historical facts. The alliance, or a succession of alliances (that is, agreements to achieve a common goal) indeed took place, but the results were without dispute very little (a few combined operations and a few coordinated strategic movements)

If, after reading those sources and all the discussion that has gone on since the first case has not made clear to you that you are grossly misreading the sources to make such a claim (and/or misunderstanding the connotation of "alliance" when used in this manner), there's little hope that you're going to be able to correct this mistake on your own. Unfortunately, that leaves us with no choice but to ask you to edit in a topic where you do not have such problems. Shell babelfish 23:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, this statement is sourced from Jotishcky Crusading and the Crusader States p.239. The same statement could also be sourced from numerous authors such as Alain Demurger. It is also in substance what say most historians. An alliance is an agreement to achieve a common goal (see any dictionary definition), and indeed numerous agreements between the Franks and the Mongols to ally and collaborate militarily have reached us in written form, and actual military actions were even undertaken to collaborate, so the fact that there was some form of alliance is 100% undisputable. It's a matter of fact rather than opinion. What is also undisputable however is that the alliance bore little fruit. But just because an alliance had few results however doesn't equate with saying that there was "no alliance", or that there were only "attempts at an alliance", and I think that's true in any language. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 23:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice that, just as I noticed the variety of the same types of quotes you attempted to pull out of sources in the first case which were unequivocally found to be misrepresenting the entirety of the source in favor of glorifying a single phrase or in some cases, making claims that were completely contradicted by the source you claimed to use. Is it possible that since English is your second language, you are misunderstanding the difference between the various cooperations and attempts at treaties between different rulers and an alliance between the Franks and Mongols? These two things are not the same. In fact, that gave me a good thought about the article name problem that might satisfy both sides; I'll post that now. Shell babelfish 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal to describe it as "alliances" is very interesting indeed [120]. I totally agree that the periods of alliance between the Franks and the Mongols were quite discontinuous. Authors do explain the sealing of an alliance at the 1274 Council of Lyons for example (Jotischki, p.246), which then "had to be revived" in 1299-1300 (Jotishcky p.249). It is also true that there was no alliance or attempts at collaboration for several years at a time. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I made that suggestion in the belief that you were trying to turn a corner and hoping we could put this behind us. I suppose I should have seen it coming, but after reading the sources you gave, its clear that once again, you've completely misrepresented what they're saying. In every case of every quote you've given, the actual quote/section talks about attempts at an alliance that didn't work out. We've now looked at between 30-50 reputable historians (I'd have to check my spreadsheet for the actual number) and not a single one agrees with your theory that an actual alliance ever occurred - you've found two books that seem to agree with your theory, one that other historians call "a work of fiction" and the other who's been shown to misrepresent sources in the same manner as you - its time to let it go. Shell babelfish 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Angus McLellan

Placeholder: PHG and I are currently discussing this matter elsewhere. I do not intend to submit a statement until we have exhausted our conversation. Since PHG has agreed to Steve Smith's request below, I do not believe this should be a problem. My apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • In response to Domer, I am of the view that ArbCom may renew its own expired remedies as amendments to the cases that imposed the remedies; even if it may not, the distinction is a fine one, since ArbCom may certainly renew its own expired remedies by way of simple motion. This is going to take some time to look into; PHG, would you be willing to voluntarily hold off on editing within the former topic ban for a week or so while we catch up? Steve Smith (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I will be glad to comply to this request. Please note that this leaves me free however to contribute to Talk Pages within the former topic (i.e. Crusades/Mongols), to the contrary of the non-community-approved ban Elonka has been trying to impose on me (the "don't contribute or I'll pursue you" threat [121]). Please take this time to review precisely the 20 edits or so I made to the Franco-Mongol Alliance page after 2 years of absence: we're talking about 10 lines of factual content, with about 20 online academic Google Book references: I am confident you will see that they represent some of the best editorial standards. Best regards, Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I was on the fence about renewing the topic ban, but in view of the recent postings (particularly the new comment by Elonka), I reluctantly propose renewing the remedies on PHG. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PHG's mentorship is renewed

1. For the next year:

  • Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
  • Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.
and
  • Per Honor et Gloria 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, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.

Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support
  1. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  3. Would add the caveat that repeated frivolous requests for the mentor to check PHG's sources should be avoided (and the mentor should be prepared to say that a request was frivolous). The most efficient use of a mentor's time would be to ask for checks where a talk page discussion has taken place between other editors first, giving something for the mentor to review. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  4.  Roger Davies talk 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. — Coren (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  6. Steve Smith (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  7. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain

PHG's topic ban is renewed

2. ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last 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.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support
  1. Unfortunately, I think this remedy is still needed. It is my sincere hope that PHG continues to contribute—especially in areas outside of this topic ban, such as early modern French history. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  3. It should be clarified that this includes a ban on creating articles in this topic area (i.e. 2.1 is a narrower version of this and failure for it to pass doesn't mean that creating such article is OK, as creation is a form of editing). Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  4.  Roger Davies talk 17:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. It would appear that this is still needed. Wikipedia is not a venue to expound novel theories. — Coren (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  6. First choice. Steve Smith (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  7. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain

Alternative motion: PHG restricted from creating new articles on the crusades and Mongol Empire

2.1. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from creating new articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire;all broadly defined. This restriction will last for a period of one year.

Support
  1. Second choice, in the event that 2 fails. Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The topic ban is still necessary. Oppose lighter. SirFozzie (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. Agree with SirFozzie. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. Not yet, at any rate. — Coren (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. The idea of this proposal was to avoid any potential COATRACK problems and see how PHG deals collaboratively on existing articles in this area. I prefer 2, but would not mind passing a narrower restriction if we commit to review his behavior in a few months. Cool Hand Luke 23:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_40&oldid=1087038385"