Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

Case Opened on 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Case Amended by motion on 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• PHG (talk · contribs), filing party
• Adam Bishop (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Srnec (talk · contribs)
• Durova (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
• John Hill (talk · contribs)
• Sponsianus (talk · contribs)
• Abd (talk · contribs)
• Eupator (talk · contribs)
• Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs) / Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs)
• Wjhonson (talk · contribs)
• Tasoskessaris (talk · contribs)
• FocalPoint (talk · contribs)
• Aldux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs)/Septentrionalis

Statement by PHG

Dear all. During the nearly 9 months since the March 2008 Arbcom ruling concerning my case (User:PHG/ Franco-Mongol alliance), various important new facts have come to light, which I believe warrant a review of my case and an official rehabilitation of my contribution to Wikipedia. These new facts relate to the revelation that 1) the secret “Independent verification” decisively used by Arbcom in its ruling against me relies on essentially improper evidence 2) I have continued contributing a very large amount of high-quality material to Wikipedia, continuously displaying high editorial standards 3) I believe the case against me had been improperly orchestrated over a period of several months by a user (User:Elonka), who, I am sorry to say, has since shown to be an extremely controversial editor.

1) Improper "Independent verification"

Although I was able through the Arbitration Worshops to properly respond to all accusations made against me (See: Response to Elonka, Response to Shell Kinney etc…) the Arbcom decisively relied for its final ruling on an alleged “Independent verification” of the sources by User:Sam Blacketer acting as scrivener, which only recently finally came to light (See: Report on use of sources by Sam Blacketer). Despite the fact that this reports had been hidden for months, something I believe quite improper in terms of procedure, the reading of it reveals that it is based on either gross misunderstanding of the source material (such as Sam Blacketer, whom I otherwise respect, making a case against me based on his confusion of the French noun "pendant" (=counterpart) with the preposition "pendant" (=meanwhile), or even errors in English vocabulary, claiming that "timing an offensive to coincide with another" would actually mean that these offensives are "coincidental"), or misrepresentation of my contributions, putting into my mouth things I never said or wrote (See: Response by PHG). I strongly dispute any ruling that relies on such inexact analysis of the facts. It is beyond me what the motives of Sam Blacketer would be, except for the fact that he seems to be very close to Elonka, since he privately counselled her during the request for the recall of her Adminship [1]. At the very least, it is a case of some basic misunderstanding of the facts and sources, and it seems quite worrying that an Arbcom ruling could be passed on such wrong premises. All my contributions have always been done in good faith, as recognized by the Arbcom [2], all my references have always shown to be exact and existing (See introductory statement by Sam Blacketer), and beyond the possibility of variations and accidents in the interpretation of the sources by any individual, I do not believe that anything like voluntary misrepresentation of sources on my part has ever been shown.

2) Continuous quality contributions

Secondly, I believe it has become obvious that my contributions are continuously of the highest quality: I have continued making important contributions to Wikipedia, continuously showing great respect for editorial rules. I believe my contributions during these 9 months amply show in a variety of subjects the nature of my editing: detailed contributions on little known subjects of cultural interaction. In spite of what I tend to think are faulty procedures and unfair characterizations, I have managed to overcome my disappointment, and endeavoured to keep providing high quality content to Wikipedia, in the areas I like most: little-known instances of cultural interaction through the ages. I believe my contributions have continuously been some of the best Wikipedia has to offer. I am particularly proud of some of the articles I created or expanded since March 2008, date of this Arbcom ruling:

MY ARTICLE CREATIONS since March 2008:
Wooden cannon Johann Caspar Horner Yanmar 2GM20 Torpedo boat tender Jean-Samuel Pauly Arcadio Huang Michael Shen Fu-Tsung Philippe Couplet Ok-khun Chamnan Kosa Pan France-Thailand relations Siamese revolution (1688) Maria Guyomar de Pinha Sangley rebellion Battle of Zhenhai Siamese method Siege of Bangkok Shanhai Yudi Quantu Wanguo Quantu Cheonhado Template:Foreign relations of Thailand Phan Thanh Gian Nguyen Phuc Canh Capture of Saigon Template:French Indochina Tonkin campaign Template:Sino-French war Le Van Khoi revolt Le Van Khoi Dictionarium Annamiticum Lusitanum et Latinum Yangwu France-Japan relations (19th century) François de Casembroot Tokugawa Akitake Edward St. John Neale Ansei Treaties Treaty of Amity and Commerce between France and Japan Murayama Tōan Japan-Thailand relations Guillaume Courtet Gustave Duchesne de Bellecourt Siméon Bourgeois Battle of Palikao Jean-Baptiste Cécille Guy Tachard Simon de la Loubère General Desfarges Charles Rigault de Genouilly René Charbonneau Pierre d'Espagnac Chevalier de Beauregard Claude Céberet du Boullay Louis Laneau Jean Antoine Théodore de Gudin Henri Nicol Charles de Montigny Sieur de Bruno Chevalier Milard M. Feraud France-Burma relations France-Vietnam relations French assistance to Nguyen Anh Jean-Baptiste Chaigneau Prosper de Chasseloup-Laubat Treaty of Versailles (1788) Charles Louis de Fredy de Coubertin Olivier de Puymanel François Pallu Pierre Lambert de la Motte Ignace Cotolendi Compagnie de Chine Joseph Marchand Jacques Vigouroux Duplessis Maupérin Michel-Étienne Turgot Artus de Lionne François-Isidore Gagelin Jean-Charles Cornay Jean-Marie Dayot Philippe Vannier French frigate Némésis (1847) Hyacinthe de Bougainville Jean-Louis Taberd Charles Ragon de Bange Léonard Charner Dominique Lefèbvre Charles Kuwasseg Jacques Duchesne Pierre Henri Dorié De Bange 90mm cannon Lahitolle 95mm cannon Jean-Baptiste Verchère de Reffye Reffye cannon Montigny mitrailleuse Joseph Montigny Claude Etienne Minié Template:Groundbreaking French weapons of the 19th century François Prélat Casimir Lefaucheux Hippolyte Marié-Davy Antoine Treuille de Beaulieu Canon-obusier Canon-obusier de 12 Valée system Jean Maritz Canon de 12 Gribeauval Florent-Jean de Vallière Jean-Ernest Ducos de La Hitte La Hitte system Year XI system Nec pluribus impar Jean-Jacques Keller French weapons in the American Civil War Tamisier

OTHER MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS since March 2008:
Paris Foreign Missions Society Sino-French War Mitrailleuse

I have also contributed hundreds of high-quality images on Commons [3], on a total of about 3,000 I have uploaded so far (most of them photographs taken by me in museums around the world: See: My photographs)

3) Suspicions of harassment, off-wiki canvassing and team-tagging

Lastly, I believe the case against me had been orchestrated over a period of several months by a user (User:Elonka) who has since proven to be a very controversial contributor, eventually even refusing to honour a pledge for recall she had made to the community. I do not wish to attack Elonka, whose contributions are not always negative, but I only wish to show the lengths to which she went in attacking me and in trying to misrepresent and discredit my contributions. Further, I challenge the fairness of proceedings of which the main accuser has now revealed herself an extremely controversial editor.

Even before the ruling, I believe I had shown that all of Elonka’s accusations against me were inexact (See: Response to Elonka). The nature of her actions have become ever more noticeable to the community as a whole, prompting a massive movement for the recall of her Administrator status Elonka recall. Finally, she refused to honour her recall pledge, just as she had refused to honour our mediation agreement (to describe the Franco-Mongol alliance as “an alliance, or at least an attempt to an alliance”). This strongly suggests that the actions of Elonka against any user, past and present, should be looked upon with suspicion.

As a matter of fact, between August 2007 to June 2008, I was hurled accusations after accusations almost daily, simply because I would not comply with her own version of the Franco-Mongol alliance (an article I created). She knew very little about the subject, but nonetheless became very aggresive, a pattern which has been repeating itself since then in disputes with other users. Basically, I had been trying to gather as many facts and references as possible on the subject (as many as 400 references at the highest point [4]), whether she insisted on a one-sided short version only describing “attempts towards an alliance”, destroying about 300 proper references in the process ([5]). To gather support for her cause, Elonka relied on on-wiki and off-Wiki canvassing of uninvolved users, a few cases of which randomly came to light (Adam Bishop Folantin Latebird Haukurth Paul Pieniezny), probably only showing the tip of the iceberg: I believe Elonka resorts to extensive off-Wiki canvassing in her disputes, freely misrepresenting her opponents, and that the same group of supporters propping up in every dispute is suggestive of tag-teaming. She makes unfair attacks on opponents through off-Wiki e-mail, a fact that occasionally surfaces (See: User: Mathsci), and something which I suspect she has done extensively in my case. Since the ruling, Elonka’s supporters have been practicing editorial cleansing, for example suppressing perfectly historical mentions of the relations between Europeans and the Mongols, such as Edward I ([6] [7]) Philippe le Bel ([8]) or Elonka herself deleting proper referenced information in Jacques de Molay ([9]) or the House of Lusignan ([10]). This is in itself a negation of historical knowledge, in denial of Wikipedia's ideal to be "The source of all knowledge". Following the ruling, Elonka tried to further pursue me by misrepresenting my contributions, such as when I created the article France-Japan relations (19th century): she abusively portrayed it as being “related to medieval history” in order to have me blocked (which an unsuspecting Administrator did), although I was properly abiding to my restrictions [11]. In Mongol-related articles, she has kept making non-referenced assertions, and removed the « Reference needed » tags inserted by others [12] to favour her own version of things, in total disregard of the most basic editorial rules.

Conclusion

I thus request that this ruling be overturned, for the multiple reasons that the “Independent verification” the Arbcom has decisively relied on appears to have been quite improper, that I have continuously proven the quality of my work with great editorial contributions and quality and utmost respect for Wikipedia editorial rules, and that my main accuser has proven to be highly controversial and untrustworthy, and has resorted to unfair methods in trying to discredit me. I love the Wikipedia project, and wish that the fairness and quality of the Arbitration Committee can be demonstrated by its ability to correct the harm and injustice that has been done to me. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Uploads on Commons. With about 3,000 images to date, I am probably one of the biggest uploaders to Wikipedia Commons [13]. Most of the photographs in question are photographs I take in museums around the world See: My photographs. I also sometimes upload images from old books, with all the intricacies and copyright troubles that it might sometimes entail. Durova has pointed out a few issues in my uploads. One seems to be a copyvio, as the author apparently died in 1940. My apologies for that oversight: I have placed a request for deletion at Commons. Several others regards the old French encyclopedia Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree, published in 1897 (there is one at my familly's home to which I have access during holidays). Durova claims that the images in that encyclopedia might not all be free as some of the authors of the images might have died after 1937. Well, honestly I don't know: the Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree is a collective work, and most of the drawings do not have names attached or referenced to them. Her comments however enlightened me on the fact that these same images would be OK on the English Wikipedia with a pre-1923 publication notice. Wonderful! I have started transferring these images to en:Wikipedia, requesting deletions from Commons at the same time. See my response and corrective actions here.

Lastly, Durova discusses about several of my drawings for which she obtained deletions back in March 2008. These were drawings I had made based on photographs of ancient artifacts (mostly ancient Greek), thinking that I could contribute valuable knowledge to Wikipedia without copyright issues. Nobody is perfect, and I didn't know that in fact this can be considered as derivative work. I am not a legal expert, but accepted that the images should be deleted. Durova seems to hold against me that I said that "I will probably redraw these contributions in the future without any link to the original photographs". Well, sorry, I am not a native speaker of English, but I think it means just that: drawing without any link to the original photographs, which means in a way that does not infringe on the photographer's artistic rights. From what I understandood of the discussion back then, and the advice given by other Wikipedians, this means drawing in a rather abstract way, without influence from the photographer's originality (in a way we often see in history books). Well, in any case, I didn't even bother making the exercise: I'd rather stay away from such litigations. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am delighted and honoured to reprint here a very nice (public) comment which Durova kindly made to me tonight which I think helps put things into perspective: "I do want to say (although it's not pertinent to the appeal) how impressive the vast majority of your uploads are. You are close to being a great editor. The things you spotted at Les Invalides particularly are admirable." [14]. For those who are interested, this is about the photographic material I have been contributing to such articles as Jean-Jacques Keller, Florent-Jean de Vallière, Gribeauval system, Valée system La Hitte system etc... Thank you Durova and best regards to all! PHG (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon review, it seems that most of the images Durova is mentionning would be coverable under pre-1923 licensing on En:Wikipedia. This is a great idea, and I have absolutely no issues with that! Cheers PHG (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I am not aware of PHG ever accepting responsibility for the problems that they have caused. Instead, they have resolutely maintained that they never did anything wrong, and where I have spot checked, they appear to have continued the same pattern of editing that tends to bias Wikipedia articles toward their own world view, at the expense of neutral point of view, verified by reliable sources. I oppose removing sanctions, or allowing sanctions to lapse. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to publish original research or ahistorical fringe theories.

The appeal above consists of intense wikilawyering and attempts to divert attention from the real issue. It should be rejected, and the Committee should consider whether to stengthen or extend the existing sanctions. Please look at PHG's contributions since the sanctions were implemented and see if they follow Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, or not. A valid appeal, in my view, would list the prior problems, state what has been done to correct them, and ask for sanctions to be lifted. Seeking to blame others is a non-starter in my opinion.

If PHG has made improvements since the last time I checked, which hopefully might be the case, it would be best for their mentor to make a statement saying so. I think any appeal filed would be more convincing if the mentor confirmed it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment to User:Dr. Blofeld: I am a frequent defender of content contributors. In PHG's case, he added content that often failed neutrality or verifiability. Subtle inaccuracies that look good are a severe threat to the encyclopedia. Somebody who writes stuff that is 90% accurate is not excused for continuing to add 10% inaccurate content after it has been pointed out to them numerous times. If only PHG were not so stubborn, they might learn to do better, and those percentages could come to a much more favorable ratio. At present, the value of what they contribute must be weighed against the very great expense of checking and repairing all their work. I am especially concerned about the careless attitude towards copyrights, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

PHG is a very hardworking editor whose realms of interest are scholarly and encyclopedic. He deserves our collective thanks for his dedication. That thanks, though, must be shared with weighty concerns. If only he adjusted to feedback, neither the arbitration nor his restriction would have become necessary. He continues to assert that the case against him had its origins in conspiracy and vendetta. These claims, to the best of my knowledge, are untrue. I uncovered dozens of invalid copyright claims in his Commons uploads--all encyclopedic material that could have been transwikied with nonfree image use rationales--yet he preferred to speculate that I was either incompetent or Elonka's puppet and after weeks of discussion those images were deleted.

Elonka doesn't pull my strings; I supported the recall request on her. But that is unrelated to this matter and as far as I know she has been correct here. These unsubstantiated allegations of corruption have continued long enough. In the heat of an arbitration case such statements might be forgiven, but the better part of a year has passed and this is not PHG's first appeal. His accusations amount to a long term campaign of personal attacks which seeks to undermine the clout of several hardworking people. This is unacceptable behavior. If it continues additional sanctions may become necessary. Durova^Charge! 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To Count Blofield, that copyright issue was handled many months ago. The depth of the problem was understated in my previous post. Unfortunately PHG also had to be blocked for several days on Commons as that community was resolving it. At the proposed decision talk page for this arbitration, after those images had been deleted, PHG stated his intention to reduce his source documentation in future uploads so that his claims of copyright ownership over derivative works would become more difficult to uncover. I will probably redraw these contributions in the future without any link to the original photographs.[15] I was very surprised to see the Committee continue to vote in favor of a finding that he acted in good faith after even after he posted a declaration of intent to continue violating the law. Suffice it to say that this does not make my responsibilities as a Commons administrator any easier. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Following up in the area I know best, I've reviewed PHG's most recent month of activity at Wikimedia Commons where he is under no restriction. 13% of his uploads (23 of 174) have inadequate or unacceptable sourcing. This includes one conclusive copyvio, a majority of of inconclusive copyright status images, and several items taken from personal homepages and blogs. The full report is available for review User:Durova/Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons. PHGcom is a prolific editor who derives material from three languages; it would be a very large undertaking to review his complete history. Fellow Wikipedians may regard this as a sample of the likely result if his restrictions came to an end at this site. Durova^Charge! 06:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One more note on why this evaluation is so pessimistic. In addition to the rest, I have long suspected that the deleted images described in my case evidence were deliberate copyright evasion. It has to do with a quirk of copyright law. Photographs of two dimensional PD artwork are public domain, but photos of three dimensional PD artwork get a photographic copyright. Nearly every pencil drawing PHG uploaded were copies of other people's photographs of three dimensional public domain artwork. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

I've always found PHG an extremely valuable and hardworking editor whose work to me has always appeared scholarly and encyclopedic. Editors who contribute content that he does should be warmly accepted not driven away. He undoubtedly deserves respect for his dedication to wikipedia. However the claims of original research and possible image copyrights do need questioning but I am certain that the claims are not as far reaching as is claimed. I am convinced that this in no way outweighs the overwhelming positive he has contributed to project and am also sure that he would make fully certain that he accepts any possible error he made and not to do it again, and is given a second chance. Please don't let us lose another valuable editor. Bascially PHG please don't use original research or violate copyright, keep to the rules and writing the best encyclopedia articles you can and try to listen to the views of others even if you think they are talking rubbish. Reply "OK". End of problem. Everybody deserves to contribute to wikipedia and a second chance, particularly editors of his calibre. Can you please make an effort to sort it out with Elonka and continue editing as before without the problems. I think the situation was and has been blown out of hand in all honesty. Best of luck editing. Count Blofeld 18:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

PHG has asked me to comment here. During a previous appeal, I noted that Siege of Bangkok relied on 3 primary sources, namely three contemporary accounts of people involved in the events. This still seems to be the case. I randomly sampled Hyacinthe de Bougainville written just over a month ago: most facts about his life before 40, mentioned on the corresponding French WP page, do not appear. The articles are quite different. It would surely have been possible to have used the detailed published biographical notes on Bougainville's life from [16] or articles from dictionaries of French biography. PHG's account seems a bit quirky and anecdotal: the 1824 mission was primarily a political, diplomatic and commercial venture; this is not made clear in his article which seems to blow minor details a little out of proportion. Anyway, this was just one sample where better and more detailed sources could have been used. That's my 2 centimes worth. Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One extra comment. I have as it happens recently been helping to improve and source the articles on the House of Ibelin. One of the articles on the multiple Guys of Ibelin originated with PHG: Guy of Ibelin (died 1304). I see the same quirkiness and pointiness there. Again good secondary and primary sources were not identified and one event was blown out of proportion. Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to angusmaclellan: like Guy of Ibelin (died 1304) and Franco-Mongol alliance, Hyacinthe de Bougainville appears to have been constructed from material in France-Vietnam relations. Here a biography was written starting from a single non-event, elevated to high espionage and a misrepresentation of the sources concerning the modus operandi of French missionaries. PHG is excellent when he writes articles about gunsmiths; however, his accounts of prominent figures, e.g. 19th century French government ministers, are heavily influenced by his prior work on France-Vietnam relations. This method of writing has resulted in unbalanced, inadequate and poorly sourced biographies of Charles Rigault de Genouilly ‎and Prosper de Chasseloup-Laubat. The French government has provided the standard biographies of these politicians on its website. With a dedicated mentor, this systematic problem with spin-off articles could probably be avoided. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Angusmclellan

I have no concerns about the work PHG has done since the last visit here. I don't see Mathsci's comments as regards Bougainville fils as being entirely fair. It's a start, it doesn't contain any obvious disinformation, and it can be improved upon. That's how we work.

As the remedies which PHG asks to have reviewed, I believe that this is worth the committee's consideration. I would be concerned at the lifting of all restrictions given the problems that exist between PHG and those other editors interested in the intersection between Mongols and Crusaders. But perhaps the topic ban might be narrowed somewhat?

I hope that PHG will rethink his attitude towards Elonka et al. Even if he cannot change his opinion, he must change his behaviour. But I do not believe the time is ripe for the committee to intervene in this dispute as the community has ample other tools at its disposal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

PHG (talk · contribs) does a lot of good work for the project, but when it comes to the topic area of medieval history, I am concerned that PHG still does not seem to understand or even acknowledge the reasons for his topic ban. To continue to protect the project, I feel that it is best if the ban remain in place, and it may even be worth considering an extension, since the original ban will be expiring in a few months. I have reviewed PHG's statement above, and see that many of the diffs he is providing are repeats from the Franco-Mongol alliance case. He is continuing to re-hash things that were said several months ago, going back all the way to 2007. By the way, as a progress report on article cleanup since the case, I am sorry to report that though we have worked through dozens of articles so far, we are still working on cleanup, working through the articles that were affected by PHG's POV-pushing, but we still have several more yet to go. There have also been recent comments of concern, as while we've been working on cleanup, PHG has been arguing at some talkpages with the same demeanor that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. To be clear, he is not violating his ban, since he is still allowed to post at talkpages. But as recently as this week, he continues to accuse others of improper deletions, continues to insist that we should give undue weight to an alleged alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols, and continues to insist that quotes from primary source documents, such as medieval correspondence, be returned to the articles. See his comments at Talk:Jacques de Molay[17] and Talk:Guy of Ibelin (died 1304).[18] It is frustrating to me to see PHG react in this way, because he does such an enormous amount of useful work in other project areas. However, with regret, I think it is best that PHG's topic ban remain in place. --Elonka 02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Adam Bishop

I don't follow what PHG does outside of medieval history topics; but he certainly never gave me any reason to believe his own advertising on the medieval articles. Sometimes I wonder whether he is even a real person or just a bot repeating the same statements over and over again - he contributes quality articles, fully sourced with the best references, etc etc, and that was always demonstrably false with the medieval topics. He never seemed to understand our objections, never understood that we were trying to help, and apparently believed that editing "his" articles meant that we were destroying his work. He frequently referred to Wikipedia policies that had nothing to do with the situation, as if random guidelines were universal laws designed specifically to protect him. My only recent interaction with him, a couple of weeks ago, was essentially exactly the same as it was a year ago, so he does not seem to have changed. (I expect he will now copy-and-paste a response detailing just how excellent an editor he really is, but every time he does that I am less and less inclined to believe him.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dr.K. (Tasoskessaris)

Hello All. I am here at the gracious invitation of PHG and I am glad to provide my take regarding PHG. I have met PHG on and off over the past year or so and I have cooperated with him on a few of his articles. I have also succesfully nominated some of his articles for DYK. I find PHG to be a very capable, intelligent and friendly editor, an asset to Wikpedia and a precious resource who, in my opinion, enhances diversity and inclusiveness in the project. I also find many of his articles fascinating, the topics eclectic and his writing excellent. I understand that he has been placed under editing restrictions, (due to past conflicts on older articles on which I am not taking a position because I am not familiar with either the topic or the issues involved and in any case I would not second-guess any decisions made), which he now appeals. I have advised PHG on his talk page to refactor the comments of his appeal to the Arbcom because I find that he does not need to divert attention from his excellent record under probation by referring to his disputes with other editors. Under the sanctions imposed by the committee his behaviour has been exemplary, his cooperation with his mentor has proceeded without problems and his adherence to Wikipedia policies has been very good. This progress alone warrants the lifting of the sanctions for the symbolic remainder of three months. The remaining period is so short it is obviously symbolic and not really substantive. So what we are really arguing here is if we are ready to return an unburdened PHG back on Wikipedia. To answer this question we have to ask ourselves if PHG's future contribution to the project will be positive and if PHG has succesfully fulfilled his probation and mentorship requirements.I think that the answers to both questions, given his record under probation, have to be positive. The only thing I would like PHG to do is to refactor his comments to eliminate any reference to a dispute with other editors. This dispute only clouds his otherwise strong case for lifting the largely symbolic three months of remaining sanctions against him. Dr.K. (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by FocalPoint

I have been notified about this request by PHG.

If the subject is to end the restrictions imposed on PHG earlier, since he has followed the rules, did not seem to contribute to any disputes with negative results and since he has positively contributed, my answer is yes, end the ban now.

My recommendation to PHG for now and for the future is to continue the good work and to passionately fight for what he thinks is right ... BUT ... if after sometime there is still strong resistance... to stop fighting in that field. Yield. Sometimes there might be a good reason behind it. Some other times not, but in both cases, stop fighting there and pick another issue. This is my suggestion which I also gave in his talk page.--FocalPoint (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sponsianus

I would just like to say that I have co-operated with PHG on the Indo-Greek and related pages for years, and that our discussions has always been highly matter of fact and unprestigious. PHG usually accepted my contributions if they were based on reputable sources and frequently gave good advice. There was a major row about the Indo-Greek maps, and in this dispute PHG was the subject of much abuse, usually keeping a far more civil tone himself as can be seen on the Indo-Greek talk page. Several of the opponents were not read up on recent research; I fear I must suspect personal and/or nationalistic reasons for some of their disagreements. Sock-puppetting also appeared. I have less knowledge about the Franco-Mongol alliance dispute, but from what I have seen I support PHG's appeal. Sponsianus (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis

I took a major part in the Featured Article Review of the Indo-Greeks. I request that ArbCom read it with care. PHG argued consistently that the article follow a source from 1938 which has dated seriously; he does not understand the ancient sources. (I do not support the opposite POV of Devanampriya, either; but he is not the vandal PHG began by describing him as; nor is he under discussion here)

PHG has edited consistently for a POV; more seriously, he uses sources which are difficult to come by, and does not report them accurately. He served Sponsianus by answering a set of complaints which had some of the same problems, but he should not be relied upon; and I hope that these sanctions will not be lifted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Kenney

I haven't had much communication with PHG since the original Mongol dispute, whenever that was, but his initial post here shows all the same hallmarks of his style that were evident then, and resulted in the ban - in particular, accusation of bad faith against his opponents. In general, PHG is a user whose work that I have seen largely depends on dubious interpretations of out of date secondary sources. As his request shows, I think, unchaining him would just result in us having to fight the same unproductive battles over again. john k (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

• Accept for a review to determine whether sanctions/restrictions should be terminated, continued, or extended/expanded in light of PHG's editing since our original decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see note to clerk, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Accept - editors would benefit from having this clarified. Many months have passed and yet it's still a source of contention. Let's revisit it and see what the updated evidence says. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Update - There's a need for serious review here. This isn't a simple "review of existing remedy". More evidence and rebuttal is likely, and the solution may be more nuanced than yes or no, or indeed may require complete re-evaluation of approach (if issues are found). Considerable concerns are being raised, of the same form as the old concerns (by both "sides"). These are important, for example the content is prolific in nature and the issues if any may turn out to be serious (copyright, sourcing, etc). If there still are persistent issues this would be a problem, and may need detailed examination (as all parties seem to agree). I'm wondering, do we actually want a full case on this to reconsider it? I have a feeling we might need to, on this one... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FT2 regarding the scope of the review to be conducted. See comments above. FT2, if you have thoughts on how the pages for the review case should be structured (see my note to clerks above), please weigh in. Ditto everyone else, of course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Accept to review the current arrangements to see if they need to be changed. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• It's a pity that PHG falls into a trap so often seen with these requests, which is a desire to relitigate the original case rather than to comment on the effect of the restrictions now. A desire to go again over old ground is often a bad indication. That said, I think now would be a reasonable time to look again at the restrictions to see if they are still reasonable or should be amended. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Accept per Brad, FT2; echo Sam's comment. James F. (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Reliability of content

2) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work toward a resolution of the concern.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Sourcing

3) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Accuracy of sourcing

4) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Compliance with sanctions; learning from mistakes

5) Users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper or unhelpful conduct, especially in an Arbitration Committee decision, are expected to avoid repeating that conduct. Continuation of the problematic behavior can lead to an extension of sanctions or more restrictive sanctions. Conversely, sustained improvement in editing may lead to the lifting or narrowing of sanctions.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Mentorships

6) Users who have been placed under mentorship or entered into a mentoring arrangement, whether voluntarily or pursuant to a committee or community sanction, should consult and take guidance from the mentor or mentors when issues arise concerning their editing. Inability to work constructively with a mentor, or a group or series of mentors, may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true. The time and effort of editors who volunteer to assist as mentors is appreciated.

Passed 12 to 0 with 2 abstentions, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing by PHG (talk · contribs) on articles relating to medieval and ancient history, especially the articles previously examined at WP:RFAR/Franco-Mongol alliance; this case is a review of the editing restrictions on PHG imposed in and after that case.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Prior damage in topics related to Mongol alliances with European nations

2) When PHG's editing was unrestricted, the user caused extensive damage, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles related to medieval history of the Mongol Empire and related events in Europe and the Middle East. Cleanup efforts are still ongoing.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Continued likelihood of POV-pushing

3) PHG's behavior on several talk pages suggests that if all editing restrictions were lifted, PHG would resume POV editing on Mongol-related topics, and topics related to Hellenistic India ([19], [20]).

Passed 13 to 1 with 1 abstention, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

PHG is a valued contributor

4) PHG has complied with his topic ban in good faith. PHG contributes resourcefully, cooperatively, and productively in many topics.

Passed 11 to 0 with 4 abstentions, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mentorship renewed

1c) PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is revised and extended. For the next year:

• PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
• PHG 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 PHG uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.

and

• PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

Passed 13 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Amended by motion 1 below 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended

2) 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.

Passed 15 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Amended by motion 2 below 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC), which was superseded by motion 3 below at 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to editing

3b) Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions.

Passed 11 to 0, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

PHG encouraged

4) PHG has complied with ArbCom's restrictions over the past ten months. PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

Passed 14 to 0 with 1 abstention, 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Motions

Following motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) PHG's mentorship is renewed

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.

Passed 7 to 0 at 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

2) PHG's topic ban is renewed

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.

Passed 7 to 0 at 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

Superseded by motion 3 below

3) PHG's topic ban is extended

The existing topic ban imposed in the PHG arbitration on Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is extended indefinitely. Accordingly, this user is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. Per Honor et Gloria may appeal this sanction no more than once every six months, starting six months from the passing of this motion.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• Please note that I have told PHG that he may edit the Imperial Japanese Navy article, which is currently being reviewed - see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1. If there is anyone who disagrees with this, please do let me know. [Originally posted here]Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)