Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

message: I have full protected this page for two weeks. This seems to be a content dispute. It also appear Elonka did not use her admin bit in this issue and therefore is a regular editor in this matter. I posted a notice on the talk page to encourage peaceful resolution by all on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk •  15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Rlevse 

message: It's tough for me to say whether this case is a content dispute (which ArbCom doesn't usually address) or a conduct issue. However, I'm inclined to encourage the ArbCom to treat this as a conduct issue and look at it as such. I know many editors who have not been following this page will immediately declare it as a content dispute, but this has long outgrown that description. Nearly every other available avenue of dispute resolution, including a mediation which I led, has been tried and -- particularly in the mediation case -- failed miserably. The article and its talk page, for the most part, can speak for themselves; we see repeated accusations of ownership, a slow-motion edit war, assumptions of bad faith, continuous allegations that sources are being misrepresented -- all the elements that together make a resolution to the now five-month dispute impossible by any other means. Additionally, the actions of certain editors on the article have made the conditions for less involved editors that want to contribute to this article just about unbearable. We have a serious problem here, one that calls into question the integrity of this article, and perhaps dozens others. Investigating the sort of behavior alleged here is not unheard-of, and I request that ArbCom do so again. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick reply to something Justin said: there is an Evidence phase within arbitration cases and this is not it. I assume Jehochman, and any others with specific allegations, will present such evidence when the appropriate time comes. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Tariqabjotu 

message: This case should most definately be accepted; while an underlying content dispute was the catalyst, the behaviors of the editors involved, in particular those of PHG, have spiraled out of the community's ability to control.  For example:
*Since the abortive FAC last September, numerous attempts have been made to improve the article; all significant changes (and even some minor ones) have been reverted by PHG         who displays rather clear ownership issues .
*The minority POV which was originally under dispute has now sprawled to more than 50 paragraphs in this article (even though the edit summary said "revert" ) and has been systematically inserted into scads of other articles creating more than a little bit of disruption that is requiring some rather serious cleanup efforts. (See this talk page post for the list of articles known to have been affected)  The behavioral side of this issue stems from PHG is abusively edit warring, subverting myriad other articles and creating numerous POV forks in an attempt to "win" a content dispute.
*PHG has also canvassed in an attempt to skew the consensus.    
*At least 6 other editors (myself included) are currently working productively on the article via talk page discussion; this was especially apparent during the 24 hours when PHG was blocked from interfering.  These editors do not all agree, so this is not about one side winning the dispute.
The committee also needs to be aware that this dispute has attracted certain editors who, for one reason or another, wish to disrupt Elonka's activities on wiki such as editors from past or current Arb cases which she was involved in.
We're not asking ArbCom to intervene in a content dispute and, in fact, don't need any intervention since absent one highly disruptive editor, talk page discussions are resolving the content issues. However, I would strongly urge the Committee to review the clear behavioral problems that stemmed from this dispute. Shell babelfish 19:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Shell Kinney 

message: This seems to be yet another argument between those promoting fringe theories or views and those holding a mainstream view on historical issues. Elonka appears to have been trying to defend the NPOV on this and related articles against what seems to be some odd behaviour on the other side. The dispute has gone on so long now (several months) that it's way beyond whatever it started out being about and now is essentially an issue where consensus has failed, and it may well be that some of the individuals on one side never had any intention of accepting a consensus removed from their own view. I would agree with Jehochman and Shell Kinney's points above, and WJB's points below. Orderinchaos 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Orderinchaos 

message: I have deleted and protected Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance, to protect the  privileged nature of Mediation Committee mediation (see also Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing). Daniel (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Daniel 

message: I am not an involved editor in this case.  Wikibits of this situation have deposited themselves on various other pages and it peaked my interest to take a look.  My rough estimate of the problem is that there was an initial failure to strive for consensus.  The catalyst appears to be a complete re-write done in user space was plopped down in situ on top of a large established article.  Frankly, were that to happen to an article I had largely contributed to, I would probably react in the same way as PHG.  I do not find the approach initially taken in this case to be any remote attempt to strive for consensus.  As the talk page clearly shows, many editors were against the rewrite and many were for it.  However in that situation, normal consensus building would be to leave the status quo article as it.  "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process." A more temperate approach, if the underlying issue were size would have been to fork the content.  A more temperate approach, if the underlying issue were neutral-point-of-view would have been to take disputes to that Talk board.  As well we have a reliable sources noticeboard, and a Talk page at original research.  The approach taken in this case, has led, over many months, here.  I think that's a fair indication, in light of the thousands of articles PHG has contributed to, that an ArbCom ruling would be effective.Wjhonson (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved Wjhonson 

message: After silently following the dispute at Franco-mongol alliance for some months, I eventually got involved over what I saw as persistent problematic behaviour on the part of PHG.  My initial concern stemmed from the creation of a series of forks that PHG presented as good faith attempts to shorten the main article, but in reality served to preserve and expand upon strongly disputed sections.  Further examination of the article and its history convinced me that PHG's activities were in violation of two fundamental areas of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:OWN and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). Attempts by myself and other editors to work with PHG regarding these concerns have been met first with polite stonewalling and evasive answers, then accusations of "being polemical and systematically banding together, " and finally silence.  I now see PHG resorting to various strategies of gaming the system: engaging in slow revert wars to evade 3RR, wikilawyering , and simply refusing to respond directly to the concerns of others.
I concur with the statements put forth by Jehochman, Shell Kinney, Orderinchaos, and WJBscribe, and believe Jehochman's reference to the  Sadi Carnot case is particularly fitting to the case at hand. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Kafka Liz

message: As someone who's spent an inordinate amount of time spatting with Elonka over this — and as a former occasional collaborator with Sadi Carnot (albeit not on the problematic articles) — I do agree that Arbcom ought to get involved here. After a lengthy argument with Elonka after I accused her of edit-warring on the issue, I actually went and checked the contributions of PHG more thoroughly, and on inspection he's the very model of a true problem editor. As with Sadi Carnot, he makes enough valid and high-quality contributions that they mask the problem edits, unless one goes looking for them. On the articles in question, his "sources" seem to be a mix of mistranslations, fabrications and self-published crackpots, and he's using these sources to replace material from numerous multiple independent sources.
There's always going to be a problem with articles like this, in that they rely on sources derived from other sources far removed from the original sources (unless we happen to have an editor floating around who speaks mediaeval Armenian); however, his pet theory (that Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols) would have been so significant, one would have to assume it would be chronicled in both Christian and Islamic histories; in this case, I think it is reasonable to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Normally, this would just be a content dispute on a very low-traffic article that wouldn't warrant an Arbcom intervention. However, this saga is starting to have spin-off effects on the rest of Wikipedia which in my opinion warrants a high-level intervention by either Arbcom or Jimbo to put a stop to the whole mess. Not only is this dispute starting to be used by WR et al as anti-Wikipedia "evidence", but it's already derailed one RFA of Elonka's and (almost) derailed another*, and is starting to waste a lot of time of a lot of regulars who could be more profitably be doing something useful. —  iridescent 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by (fairly) uninvolved Iridescent

message: Any editor who writes that another contributor has "attacked the Franco-Mongol alliance page" and complains about "hijacking of this page" is, in my opinion, suffering from serious ownership issues. This is not a simple content dispute, the behavior of the editors involved needs to be examined in detail. I recommend the committee accept this case. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved TimVickers

message: My familiarity, at this point, with what ArbCom does, exactly, is not all too clear, so I can't say directly whether Arbcom should accept this case.  I do think that PHG is a serious problem editor, that his contributions are full of incredibly tendentious arguments, and that he holds ground with a tenacity that makes it difficult for normal editing practice to arrive at consensus in improving these articles.  As Tim Vickers notes above, PHG has serious ownership issues with articles he creates, and, further, he is very difficult to reason with.  Something certainly ought to be done about him. john k (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by John Kenney

message: My problem is not so much the content, just that there is too much of it, and that PHG has no idea how to read, study, or write history. It's embarrassing to read and is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is untrustworthy. But now it is too big to fix. If it were up to me, I would recommend deleting it and everything else that has been written about it, leaving it for a few months, and then restarting from scratch...but that's just me. I'm not sure this needs to be subjected to yet another Wikipedia process, but I agree with John that PHG is a huge problem. I know that PHG has been here for a long time and had worked on a large amount of articles on obscure topics, and that is usually a great thing, but after my experience here, I wonder whether those articles are as awful as this one is... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Adam Bishop

message: I agree completely with what Vickers said, I think this is a dispute with a little more than content involved. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 13:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Pupster21

message: Whether or not this case is accepted (I have no recommendations), I think it would be prudent for Arbcom to consider the firm distinction between content disputes and user conduct issues arising out of content disputes. From what I have gathered (but not personally confirmed), the article ownership and user conduct issues revolving around PHG in this case are reminiscent of an Arbcom case I was involved with some years ago: that of Copperchair. I advise all parties and administrators to review and consider that precedent. Philwelch (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Philwelch

message: I'm a bit concerned with Elonka's third-person (addressed to others) usage of PHG's talk page today to showcase, at length, her criticism. El_C 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been criticized by Shell Kinney ("most unhelpful line to take" [etc.] ) for my statement here and on the talk page. On further thought, I don't see what I have to retract. Just because it seems clear that PHG has already been found guilty, does not mean everything goes; that it is some sort of a free for all; that his talk page may be turned into an evidence page (a mere day or two before we have official evidence pages set up, anyway) without his explicit consent. Once we stop guarding the rights of the accused, it's all down hill from there. El_C 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been asked to comment, as someone with professional historical training, on PHG's contributions. Well, I don't really have much to add that hasn't been said here already. Except, if the Arbitration Committee and others are able to bring together a panel of experts (not me, I specialize in 20th Century history), to not only look at this article, but also his prior contributions (including several FAs), that would be ideal. Because, clearly, certain methodological practices on his part do not add up. El_C 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit concerned with the lengths to which Elonka seems prepared to go to demonstrate to me that my objection is unfounded. All I'm saying it that using another user's talk page as an evidence page without securing their permission, oversteps user talk page etiquette. I hope that both Elonka, and her supporters, will be able to draw this conclusion, and move on. El_C 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by ElC

message: I believe that PHG has clearly demonstrated behaviour that is harmful to Wikipedia. This type of editor (the one that seems to appear reasonable at a quick glance, but is pursuing a single point of view with total disregard to others', and is willing to spend considerable energy working around the rules intended to prevent such behaviour) is one of the most frustrating types of conflict that Wikipedia has to deal with.
Elonka deserves praise for having had the stamina to deal with this person, and PHG should be banned quickly and permanently. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:Alvestrand]] 

message: I ask that the Committee consider amending the above case; in particular remedy one, "PHG restricted", which was passed uncontested and currently reads:
: 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.
I propose to make the simple change of "articles" to "pages". Although this may seem minute to the point of being redundant and a waste of time, I respectfully request that the Committee considers the comments made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles, and also respectfully ask whether Committee members feel that the current remedy is effective in dealing with this and similar situations in the future.
Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 

message: Original research is not welcome on Wikipedia.  PHG has been asked not to edit certain topics because he has been unable to comply with this requirement for whatever reason.   If PHG is writing about these same topics in userspace, there is a high probability that it is original research.  We should not be required to spend even more volunteer time to debug each incident.  There is no reason for an editor to compile original research in userspace, and Wikipedia is not a hosting provider.   PHG should be warned that this activity is not allowed, and that if continued, the result will be a block.  Jehochman  Talk 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] 

message: I see what Daniel is getting at here, and I support it, but think that it could be even stronger.  The problem as I see it isn't just that PHG is continuing to skate the edge of his restrictions, but that he has never indicated, even once, an acknowledgement that he understood what he did wrong.
This is actually symptomatic of a larger problem which I see with the way that the Wikipedia culture implements blocks.  And I am speaking here as a professional online community manager, who has been doing this for 18 years.  In a nutshell:  When someone is disruptive within a community, and they are blocked repeatedly, you shouldn't keep letting them back in, unless the individual acknowledges that they understood what they did wrong,  and further, that they are capable of promising that they're going to do better.  Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up with a revolving door, where a disruptive editor just continues to disrupt. It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block.  But we should follow a three-strike rule.  Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out".
PHG is a classic example of the problem.  Even during his most recent block, he continues to argue with FT2, he continues to proclaim his innocence (see User talk:PHG#Block).  Every indicator that I have seen from PHG, says that he is just going to continue with problematic behavior, that he is going to keep repeating the same arguments, and that he is going to keep on doing effectively the same things that led to the ArbCom case in the first place.  In my opinion, what needs to be done is that he needs to be blocked indefinitely, until he is able to make a promise that he is going to do better.  If he can't do that, then don't let him back.  We've all got better things to do with our time, than to keep cleaning up after him. I do understand the desire to "hope for reform," but it has to be a reasonable hope.  If PHG gave his word that he was going to try to reform, sure, I could have hope too.  But he has not. --Elonka 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (followup) Since PHG continues to violate sanctions (today he re-created an article in his userspace that had been deleted at MfD, and he is continuing to argue against consensus at various talkpages), I am requesting another block.  Details and diffs are available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:PHG. --Elonka 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Elonka|Elonka]]

message: I became concerned, in following the MfD mentioned above, that the ArbComm decision was being misrepresented. I found it quite carefully crafted and precise. It did not generally condemn PHG's work, but noted problems with his sourcing. The FoF did not reject his work in toto, and it specifically asserted a continuation of an assumption of good faith, which would indicate that the sourcing problems found were not considered deliberate falsification of sources, but rather unintentional misrepresentation of a kind that, while less than cautious and careful, and certainly improper and worthy of reprimand, commonly happens when a writer has a POV. Combined with tendentious and uncivil argument, this justified a ban from editing the relevant articles, for a year, but participation in those articles, through Talk, was permitted and encouraged, provided it was civil.
In the MfD, however, I found many statements that exaggerated what had been decided, or even that implied the contrary of what had been decided. Thus, because much of this originally came from adverse parties in the Arbitration, it appeared to me that an original content dispute and conflict and resulting enmity between editors was being continued through the MfD. Rather than repeat all of this (I have no intention of blackening the name of any editor) I'll refer to the MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. I placed a note above the editor comments flagging the involvement of editors in the prior arbitration, with no implication of impropriety; this resulted in a nascent edit war, terminated when another editor, who had, in my opinion, cross the line into edit warring and incivility, prudently self-reverted. (Though, without that, I would not have reverted, but rather would have followed WP:DR.) (This is described in an AN/I report, currently at WP:AN/I#Edit warring, general incivility at MFD - alert the media) My original notice was moved to Talk for the MfD. Other involved editors began commenting on my Talk page..
It became apparent to me that there is a well of bad feelings about PHG and his contributions. I have no opinion about who was right and who was wrong (and both can be right and both can be wrong). However, the ArbComm decision did not do what was claimed about it, that I could see. I have no action to recommend to ArbComm, it seemed the decision was very clear and properly crafted; however, the decision only dealt with PHG, and there is another side to this, which came out in the MfD, where the most negative parts of the ArbComm ruling, which was precise and nuanced, were emphasized, and the positive aspects were ignored, such as the affirmation of ArbComm that good faith continued to be assumed, and the encouragement of PHG to continue to contribute, including to Talk with the history articles, where his userspace collection of materials might be of assistance. The deletion of the files (as has now been done) could be a hindrance to that contribution, though minor. There were other remedies suggested that would have addressed legitimate concerns without inhibiting PHG's legitimate work: for the concerns that he was using his space as a web host, the files could be blanked, leaving the working material accessible to him in History. For the concerns about the lost History, the files could have been restored from prior deletions or the like. The concern that the files would be a source of further incorrectly sourced edits was already covered by the ArbComm restriction to Talk; another editor would then have to take responsibility for the verification of any sources asserted and the appropriateness of the text. I would not, myself, ask for Deletion Review, since less troublesome remedies exist for PHG and I have no interest in the files, or the underlying dispute. My sole reason for making this statement is to call the attention of  ArbComm to an abuse of an ArbComm ruling. If the ruling was, in fact, as negative about PHG as has been claimed, and I was simply out to lunch, I'd appreciate correction so that whatever disruption took place does not take place again. --Abd (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Abd|Abd]] 

message: The MfD closed delete two days ago. The rationale was: "Delete - Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is relevant here. User space is not a free pass to hide articles that were deleted.". Orderinchaos 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor update by Orderinchaos 

message: After the MfD closed as delete, PHG proceeded to recreate User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance and, when that was deleted per CSD G4, created User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century). He has also since been blocked again for violating the remedies of the case in the mainspace; see this section. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update by [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 

message: *Recuse, obviously. Daniel (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: I am requesting that the above case be amended to the effect that User:Elonka be restricted from attacking me through abusive representation of the Arbcom decision. Elonka is trying to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia , and is misusing Arbcom restrictions to achieve her means. Most recently, she pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." 
;Claims/evidence:
* Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" . There was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (now France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period.
* Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
*As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." . This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new (, far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) , or totally legitimate  as they had not been discussed in detail yet 
*Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)"  However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles (as already re-affirmed by the Arbcom when a request to the contrary failed ). 
*Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" .
;Requested remedy
I request a fair treatment from the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be restricted against harassing me or misrepresenting my Arbcom restrictions or the nature of my contributions. PHG (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request by [[User:PHG|PHG]]

message: I have commented several times on this issue. Perhaps it would be best if I reiterate my thoughts from AE: see here.
If any ammendment to be made, I feel that the most suitable one would be a clarification of the Committee's view on PHG's contributions and, by extension, his disruption. The initial restriction was very much, I feel, a message to PHG that his editing habits need to change. Rather than interpret the spirit of that remedy, and use his last reprieve from project exclusion and firmer remedies (which were very much on the table during the Franco-Mongol case) well, he has proceeded to duck around the fine points of the remedy (e.g., creating articles that fell just outside of the "medieval history" period, from which he was restricted).
I feel PHG's conduct since the initial arbitration case was closed has fell well beneath the standards expected of a project editor, and I think it harmful for him to be allowed to continue in this vein. Anthøny 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: {extended comment by PHG, removed} I do not wish to enter into yet another round of ping-pong. Anthøny 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:AGK|AGK]]

message: This amendment proposed with a view to amending Franco-Mongol alliance to: 1/ cover all history articles, per recent gaming of the remedy's specifics, such that he is editing articles which, although very clearly related to history, are not covered by the remedy's boundaries of "medieval or ancient history"; 2/ include all pages of the project, rather than simply articles.
Remedy one of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance is amended such that,  is now restricted from editing and creating any pages related to 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.
The "blanket" nature of this proposal, in that it covers the general subject area of "history", as opposed to specific branches of it, is proposed in light of PHG's recent progression from "medieval and ancient history", to more recent, renaissance history. It has become somewhat apparent that he will continue to roam around the countless branches of history, and it is a waste of both the Committee's and the Community's time to consistently bring in additional remedies, restricting his recent area of activity.
This blanket nature is somewhat drawn from recent cases, such as (and here I flinch, at having to drag back in recent cases) Privatemusings, where Privatemusings was restricted from all BLP articles. My proposed amendment to Franco-Mongo's fairly close-to-the-bone approach has the added advantage of noting that disruption to certain topic areas will not be tolerated, and will be handled robustly.
I am also open to further chopping-and-changing of this proposal, including to include either point 1/ or 2/ (see my introduction), although I obviously think that to be less than ideal. Anthøny 18:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Amendment, from [[user:AGK|AGK]]

message: PHG has certainly exhausted my patience.  This request by PHG amounts to vexatious litigation.  I request the arbitration committee address this dispute with greater vigor.  At some point we must stop wasting time on disruptive users who show no sign or intention of improving. Can somebody tell me why we allow PHG to continue editing any history articles, or any articles, given the history of tendentious misrepresentation of sources?  Is there any reason to think this is related only to Franks and Mongols, as opposed to Franco-Japanese history?   Jehochman  Talk 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]]

message: I still support my comments here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Daniel

message: This is nothing more than a regurgitation of PHG's complaints during the Arbitration case that were ignored then as they should be now.  I have bent over backwards to help PHG edit productively including starting a DRV for him on the article in question for him while he was blocked -- I had sincerely hoped he could stick there and edit it in a way to show that he was going to move on and instead, the first time he has no interaction with Elonka in several days, we get this plastered everywhere.
I can't for the life of my figure out why he's become so fixated on Elonka.  For instance, the case where he "recreated" a deleted page with a link to the deleted material -- I was the one who found and re-deleted it -- Elonka hadn't a thing to do with the case; yet every time it comes up, he blames Elonka.  No matter how many people have tried to talk to him about that particular situation, he honestly seems to think that he was right and that I was wrong to delete it.
Obviously, PHG doesn't get it.  Once he makes up his mind on an issue, he seems to be incapable of accepting any feedback or other viewpoints on the issue.  Combine that with misguided editors with a cause like Abd and Dreamguy actually encouraging PHG's behavior and you're looking at a continuation of all the same problems with no end in sight.  I'm honestly out of ideas on how to get PHG on track -- he refuses to go work in any of the other areas in Wikipedia that have interested him before, he refuses to be civil and calm, he refuses to accept any consensus he doesn't agree with and he refuses to stop these tirades against Elonka -- I'd be interested to hear if there are any suggestions other than blocking him any time he behaves in this manner. Shell   babelfish 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Shell Kinney|Shell Kinney]]

message: I became aware of this situation through the MfD mentioned above by Daniel. I noted there that the ArbComm decision in the primary case was apparently being misrepresented, in the nomination by Kafka Liz and in the first statement by Elonka, and I felt that this was important enough to warrant flagging it above the comments. This began a minor edit war, terminated when User:Fredrick day, shortly to be blocked, reverted my compromise language with a grossly uncivil comment, then reverted himself. Other editors then allowed the brief warning to remain. This misrepresentation is at the core of this dispute, in my opinion.  The Committee stated that it continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, and it did not accuse him of actual "falsification" of sources. What we see in the complaint above is an assumption that everything from PHG must be examined with a jaundiced eye. That is, in fact, blatant AGF failure, contrary to policy, and itself sanctionable.
What I would urge ArbComm to do, here, is to look at the behavior of all involved (including myself) and notice and respond to policy failures, beginning with AGF. Above, I am accused of impropriety for allegedly encouraging PHG. I seek the guidance of this Committee.--Abd (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Abd|Abd]]

message: Regarding PHG's copy/paste here of what he's already posted at ANI and  WP:AE, I point to what's already been said in the ANI thread. As for new comments:
PHG runs hot and cold. Not all his work is bad. But even with the good work, sometimes it's hard to tell which it is, because though he writes well and uses lots of footnotes, he often still creates "bad" articles that are full of original research, violate WP:UNDUE, and sometimes use bad sources which promote fringe theories. 
I also see PHG's behavior as an extreme example of a larger problem on Wikipedia.  The culture here has a soft spot for article creators, or indeed any longterm editor who has a history of good contributions mixed in with the bad, such that the community tolerates disruptive behavior for far longer than I think is wise. As a visual analogy, I equate one of these  editors to a tank that rumbles over the countryside, creating a swath of destruction.  Yes, a few  new flowers (articles) that might not have otherwise been there as soon, do grow in its wake.  But to see them, requires ignoring the rest of the tank's carnage, dealing with multiple weeds that have been planted at the same time as the flowers, and attending to the injuries of other "gardeners" that were wounded during the tank's passage.
So, to reduce this collateral damage, I would like to suggest an amendment of my own. One of PHG's tactics is that as he gets challenged, he uses increasingly obscure sources. I have spent literally dozens of hours in libraries, just to research PHG's claims. Some sources were not available locally, or even via interlibrary loan.  When I recently visited Washington DC, I spent many hours in the Library of Congress, just to get my hands on some of the more obscure books that PHG uses. I have also often found myself up against language barriers, as I have had to work with text in Latin, French, German, Italian, Hebrew, Arabic, and at one point I even tracked down editors from the Armenian WikiProject to translate text from Medieval Armenian. Even now, PHG is citing works that are in a combination of French and Japanese, and to make things even  more  complicated, they appear to be non-standard works which are not available in any American library.  When I pointed this out, PHG suggested going to a rare book website to purchase them (at a cost of over $100 / book!).
I still think that PHG should be permanently removed from Wikipedia.  But, if the community still doesn't have enough stamina for that, I would at least like to see the following amendment:
--Elonka 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.  I can give a great deal more evidence about other problematic behavior by PHG since the ArbCom case has closed, such as creating articles which violate WP:UNDUE, and where he has been including inappropriate sources (of those that I am even able to check).  He also appears to be linking to other articles, which, though they may seem to be reinforcing the information that is in PHG's new articles, as I'm digging deeper, I'm finding out that PHG created the older articles in the first place.  Some go back to 2005, are completely unsourced, and follow this pattern of linking to other unsourced information which PHG had already planted.  It's a bit complex to try and explain here in a short statement, but if the arbs want, I can pull this together on a subpage or something for review. --Elonka 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Elonka|Elonka]]

message: I apologies if this seems inappropriate, but I felt I needed to comment here. I would like to echo some of the above comments, that Elonka has a tendency to exaggerate things. PHG seems to be trying to work within his limits, and in a way that is acceptable to the community, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's not perfect. It's one thing to say "Hey, PHG, you're in that grey area again, so be careful" and another to exasperate the situation.
In other words, there may be issues here, but there may also be a lot of undue weight. Unfortunately, as a community, we're quick to jump on the back of those who struggle with issues, even when that's not a good way to help the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved User:Ned Scott

message: I am disturbed by the way PHG wrote Christian Polak, bio of the author of many of the sources that he has been using in France-Japan relations (19th century).  In creating this article today, PHG makes M. Polak look like a career historian, when M. Polak is in fact a business consultant who does historical research "in parallel to his professional activities" (translation from the French). (see page 9, sorry about the font). M. Polak's business career is entirely absent from PHG's version of the article, despite the fact that the information was available in the sources he himself used to write the article, as well as simple google searches. I gather that this pattern of selective quoting of material to make a point is one that has been critiqued in the past. --Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved User:Slp1

message: I have three comments and two suggested amendments to the ArbCom decisions. Comments:
#I dispute Elonka's rationale for banning PHG. I don't thinking remove an editor with a generally civil record and numerous good contributions is best considering the number of editors who purposefully stir things up, are constantly uncivil, and who make next to no article-space edits and are still part of the project. 
#In light of the numerous allegations of it, I should say that I think "incivility" a bad reason for serious action unless it is extremely abusive, which PHG's has not been. He has barely even been uncivil by the standards of some other editors who don't even have sanctions against them. Whenever we concentrate on incivility we are ourselves in danger of falling out of WP:NPA: since we are not concentrating on content but on contributors. 
#PHG has demonstrated a problem specificalloy with WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, and WP:RELIABLE (I wouldn't say either WP:NOR or WP:SYN). 1. He supports representing all opinions found in sources that meet Wikipedia's (low) standards. Contrary to his beliefs, this is not the crux of the NPOV policy. 2. He has shown a marked dislike for any major changes to text he writes. He creates articles in obscure topics perhaps because he knows he can de facto "own" them (N.B. pure speculation). 3. He doesn't seem to realise that not all sources are reliable nor are even all statements in reliable sources reliable. A trained historian would not make the mistakes he makes because he would read texts critically. 4. PHG copiously sources his text and I have not encountered major OR issues arisen except out of accident. 5. He has synthesised material (perhaps unknowingly), but he has not really objected to fixing this, in my opinion. 
Proposed amendments:
#Elonka's amendation is wise (considering English-language to include any work with an English translation available). So long as there are all-pervasive source concerns with PHG's work, he should be forced to stick to more accessible sources, per WP:V. This should not apply to talk pages (where he can present his obscurely-sourced material for discussion, since obscure sources can be very good ones) or user subpages (where he can work on his obscure material, but where right is reserved to delete if the sources are determined to be wanting). 
#PHG should not be banned for incivility unless "incivility" is more precisely defined. Same for "ancient and medieval history": put down strict guidelines so we have no more of this damned grey area, which has led to abusive and unnecessary blocking. 
Srnec (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Srnec|Srnec]]

message: Amend the decision to state specifically ArbCom's view of the evidence, as this will guide the two chief combatants, as well as admins and community at large, as to what constitutes undue representation of its decision. I note mediation was closed due to "Participants' [plural] unwillingness to proceed with the mediation in good faith",  and I note in arbitration these two each accused the other of personal attacks, edit warring, and unfair presentation of viewpoints (not always under those heads).  As a first-year editor, I am still learning what WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:NPOV mean, and after much consideration I am still unable to discern from those pages why ArbCom judicially endorsed one party's accusations and made little to no mention of the other's. The ruling  briefly characterizes one party's edits wholly in terms of reference to the other party's characterization, and alludes to ArbCom's merely "confirm"ing allegations of misleading use of sources. In short, the ruling permits one to infer ArbCom found all arguments on one side to be persuasive, and none on the other side, which would seem to reflect poorly on ArbCom's impartiality and not to account for the mediator's finding of bilateral unwillingness. In its generic reply I fail to understand independently why any particular argument proposed by either side is valid or not. It would be very helpful to us newcomers to see a list of, say, three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of valid allegations in each category of behavior (attacks, edit war, NPOV) as endorsed by five arbiters, along with three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of allegations in each category which fail to rise to the level of attacks, edit war, or NPOV. For instance, I failed to discern any evidences which unequivocally rose to blatant misrepresentation, complete nonsupport, and total misuse as requested.  I believe this specificity not only would be eminently appropriate for ArbCom to publish, but also would greatly clarify to us how evidences differed one from another and would provide clear guidance to both parties as to how enforcement should proceed. Perhaps I am making an overture uncharitable to ArbCom's methodology, in which case I apologize and await being pointed to the proper means for handling the concerns I make obvious in this paragraph. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[lurker]] [[User:John J. Bulten]]

message: I have become aware of this case only recently, while participating in an AfD discussion, currently still ongoing, for the article Christian Polak that PHG created. I will say for the record that I have never before crossed paths with PHG, was not involved in and was not aware of the ArbCom case regarding PHG and, even of this moment, am not familiar with the details of this case (nor do I want to learn about them). I have zero interest in the history of Franco-Japanese or Franco-Mongol relations and only participated in the AfD discussion because it was listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. The AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak had some tense moments but proceeded relatively peacefully for a while. However, it then had a flare-up of high drama and by now this AfD has become a rather unpleasant place and I plan to stay away from it. The immediate precursor to this flare-up was an edit by PHG  to Christian Polak. This edit introduced a statement that Pollak was awared Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989. If true, this would certainly have established the subject's notability. However, the reference given by PHG was a site in Japanese . It turned out that PHG mistranslated the content of that site and it was eventually confirmed that Polak received a lesser civil award, Ordre national du Mérite. When the mistake was pointed out by other users, PHG quickly corrected the wrong info . PHG was reported to AE by User:Jehochman, quickly blocked by User:Coren and quickly unblocked by User:El_C (see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak).
Several comments regarding this episode. Certainly, under normal circumstances, a mistake like that made by PHG in this case would not have warranted a block. However, it appears that in this particular case the editor, PHG, was on probation and was warned to be particularly careful with sources. I do not have an opinion regarding whether this block was justified, but what happened here certainly gives one pause, especially since PHG knew that this was a controversial AfD and that he had to be particularly diligent with his edits. I must say that, providing a Japanese website, without giving translation, as a source for a major French governmental award, strikes me as distinctly imprudent, even for an editor who was not on an ArbCom probation for problematic sourcing. 
PHG does have his passionate defenders, such as User:John J. Bulten. I am somewhat sympathetic to their arguments that PHG was under a lot of pressure to quickly provide some evidence of notability for Polak since an AfD was filed so quickly after the article was created. But it does not really justify playing with matches next to a gas tank. The article should have been prepared carefully in a Sandbox first, and many of the current problems might have been avoided.
I must say, however, that I am less than positively impressed by the involvement of some of the PHG's prior opponents in this particular AfD. I think that Jehochman jumped the gun with his AE enforcement request and that Elonka's comments in the AfD did not particularly help to keep the temperature down. 
 
I don't know what all of this means for this ArbCom case but I hope that we can avoid having AfDs degenerate into these kinds of battles in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumped the gun?  I have been waiting patiently since September 2007 for somebody to stop the steady flow of unverifiable, or verification failing material, by PHG into Wikipedia. Forgive me for being hasty, but I have already waited a very long time. Jehochman Talk 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Nsk92]]

message: I received a request to comment on a specific side discussion without being notified that the case itself was under a review request.  This has just now come to my attention.  The stricture on Medieval history needs revision because the designation is basically a European era and does not graft well onto east Asian topics.  Apparently PHG is fluent in Japanese. DurovaCharge! 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the motion. DurovaCharge! 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]]

message: I could support a mechanism, such as binding mentorship, that would be set up to better ensure the extended restrictions work. But I do not feel that it makes sense to block PHG indefinitely until it's up and running. Also, Elonka needs to find something else to do if she continues to be so hostile to anyone who isn't in full agreement with her. Her "request" earlier today to that I "think hard about whether or not you feel that you are genuinely suited to keep on being an administrator" doesn't inspire confidence. Thank you. El_C 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were mentorship, I would support removal of the topic restrictions, as they would no longer be needed.  It is clear to me that the problem is related to sourcing methodology, not any particular topics. Jehochman Talk 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly; that's why I didn't use the word "topic" above. It does increasingly appear to be more of a universal methodological issue, than an historiographical one (as we first thought). I think in that event, the (binding) mentorship would, in effect, be the restrictions. El_C 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This notwithstanding his tendency to overemphasize on Franco-*Asiatic connectedness (in general). El_C 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what I known best about, and am best positionned to contribute. I also wrote a lot about British people or Americans in Japan though (William Adams (sailor), Anglo-Japanese relations, Japan-United States relations), but that's less of my area. Best regards :) PHG (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant as an historiographical leaning, though maybe I could have phrased it more precisely. El_C 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by ElC

message: :This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
*Recuse. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: * I'm minded to proposed an extension to our ruling to include everything, not just articles, given the sub-page issue (which goes clearly against the spirit of the ruling, as AGK notes). James F. (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: We have a big problem in that PHG's convincing looking citations can fool a majority of good faith editors.  In attempting to clean up the article Buddhism and Christianity that I found listed at the fringe theory noticeboard, I spotted a familiar a pattern of original research, original maps that have no sources, and copyright violations in the form of book cover uploads.  Sure enough, I found PHG had heavily edited the article.  This is exactly the same pattern as we saw before.
Regrettably, PHG's mentorship with  has ended.  Coren appears to have been inactive since May 8, 2008.  The mess of damaged articles remains.  Attempts to fix this mess meet with resistance because editors are unaware of the problems.  I have been asked to prove, yet again, that sources have been misrepresented.  Please excuse me for not having 8 hours to drive to a research library, find an obscure book, and go through the article line by line to yet again demonstrate the same problem that was demonstrated at arbitration.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Christianity, in particular, this edit: .  I am at a loss for how to solve these problems.  Could the Committee please review this situation and provide guidance.  Perhaps an additional remedy is needed to expedite clean up of the messes.  Ideally, we need the ability to blank, revert, or delete articles to a state that is untainted by misrepresented sources. It is neither efficient nor scalable to have to go through all the same arguments as we faced at arbitration for each instance of the problem.  By now, there should be a presumption that PHG's information on East-West cultural connections from the time period prior to arbitration is not reliable.   Additionally, I think PHG needs to stand aside and not obstruct clean up efforts in any way. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrick7: Click Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance to see all the time that has thus far been invested in dispute resolution.   Jehochman Talk 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The pattern in this article is very obvious, given my close attention to the prior case.  Regrettably, uninvolved editors like yourself generally don't see the problems on quick inspection.  This is the great danger of subtle misrepresentation and insertion of original research.  As you point out, PHG has not touched the article for a long time, but it has not been fixed yet because the damage is not obvious.  I really do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion on each and every tainted article while attempting to fix it.  There has to be a better way. Jehochman Talk 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I thought about stubbing the article, but as you can see from the AfD discussion, blanking and starting from scratch has significant opposition.  I do not think changing the forum of discussion from AfD to the article talk page would have helped in any way.  At least AfD helps bring in some fresh points of view. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It is a hard problem, which is why I have come here for advice. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for suggesting places to list articles for cleanup, and I like Shell Kinney's idea that PHG needs to find a new mentor.  This should be mandatory, and include all editing. The mentor needs to speak French. Jehochman Talk 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a few articles to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance.  Should we move that list to a dedicated page, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Checklist? The list is associated with the arbitration case, and may include things that are not closely related to Franks and Mongols. 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]]

message: Per Mathsci's report below, I request PHG to be blocked until a mentor is appointed.  It is not fair to those cleaning up his messes in article space to allow this pattern of editing to continue without any sort of restraint.  PHG is using up a huge amount of volunteer time. Jehochman Talk 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for temporary restriction

message: I think I contributed only about 15% of this article Christianity and Buddhism, most of my contribution being historical background (Indo-Greeks etc...) and photographs. My last contribution gets back to August 30, 2007, about a year ago . Just look at the state and length of the article, even before I contributed anything . This is old stuff, and I will be glad to discuss if there are any specific issues to be addressed. We're all here to contribute content as best as we can. For some of my latest contributions, please see France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok, which I am very proud to contribute. Cheers. PHG (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My articles France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok do use as one of their sources the very interesting Michael Smithies' Three Military Accounts of the 1688 revolution in Siam . The book is organized as follows: a Preface and General Introduction by Michael Smithies, an English translation of the account published by General Desfarges with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of the account by de la Touche with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of an account by Vollant des Verquains with Preface by Smithies, a Conclusion and Chronology by Michael Smithies. Altogether, Smithies gives a rather precise account of the events related to the Siamese revolution over the 40 or so pages which he personnally authors. For some details, I also sometimes relied on the translations themselves. As far as I know, this is accepted by Wikipedia, provided that the primary accounts have been published by a reliable secondary source, and that the primary sources are used for purposed of factual documentation, which is the case here (see Wikipedia:No original research). Cheers. PHG (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:PHG]]

message: Dispute resolution? -- Kendrick7talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but PHG hasn't edited that article since 30 August 2007, and that ArbCom case came into effect in March of this year. The case explicitly doesn't forbid him from commenting on Talk page, so I'm sure commenting on AfD's is fair game. -- Kendrick7talk 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You trotted him out as a bogey-man and cited his having edited the article as a reason for deleting the article. It's a stretch of the F-Ma case to declare that everything he ever touched is permanently sullied, and he was right to call you out on it. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess you could always just de-ref the article, i.e. yank all the references (not added in the past 11 months) and put them on the article talk page, and then replace them all with  tags, or information that is especially suspect with . Stick a big  tag up top, and just let the article evolve from there. -- Kendrick7talk 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, the article was pretty far along before (apparently) PHG ever got there. I don't see how undoing the labors of dozens of editors over several years solves anything. There's no "quick fix." -- Kendrick7talk 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Kenrick7

message: I think this might be solvable by having PHG choose a new mentor, since Coren does not appear to be performing that duty any longer. Shell   babelfish 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka makes a good suggestion - we already had a de facto central area where we were listing articles to review and I'm sure no one would mind if Jehochman has other articles he wants to add to the list. Shell   babelfish 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Shell Kinney|Shell Kinney]]

message: I'm not entirely understanding why this is at ArbCom again.  The article that Jehochman is talking about, has not been edited by PHG in several months.  So what exactly is it that Jehochman wants the arbitrators to do?  Ban PHG for something he's not doing anymore? As near as I can tell, ever since the last clarification a few months ago, PHG has been doing a very good job at abiding by his sanctions.  He is still creating articles at a rapid rate, but he is staying out of the medieval topic area, has not been engaging in excessive debate at talkpages, and appears (last I checked) to be sticking to reliable English-language sources. I do agree with Shell Kinney that since PHG's old mentor appears to be inactive, that it would be wise to choose a new mentor (I recommend Shell, if PHG would accept).  As for cleanup, I recommend that anything new that is found, that requires cleanup from PHG's past efforts, be added to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review.  We are still working our way through the dozens of other PHG-edited articles with NPOV problems, so it couldn't hurt to add a few more, perhaps in a section like, "Additional articles for review", to make it clear that these may be in slightly different topic areas. At least that will provide a depository where identified articles can be clearly listed as still needing review, and will help identify the scope of the problem. --Elonka 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Elonka|Elonka]]

message: I am adding these comments at the request of Jehochman, following a private communication. Having looked at some of PHG's recent edits to articles connected with the Siege of Bangkok and Siamese revolution (1688), there do still appear to be problems with his edits. He appears to have used as his principal source translations of primary documents, reports by french soldiers present at the time, recently translated from French by Michael Smithies. A review  of this translation makes it clear that it requires the skills of a professional historian to interpret these first-hand accounts, plagued by rivalries and jealousies between different French factions. Other sources are not mentioned, e.g. Hutchinson's classic Revolution in Siam  and the very recent Witness to a Revolution: Siam 1688 , both translations of contemporary accounts. So apparently most of the article seems to be derived from primary sources and not a secondary text by a professional historian. The Thailand article in Distant Lands and Diverse Continents: The French Experience in Aisa, 1600-1700 by Ronald S. Love gives more detailed references, including a 40 page paper from 1935 by Hutchinson in the Journal of the Siam Society and Thailand: a short history by David K. Wyatt (117-118). Detailed secondary sources (such as the detailed account of Hutchinson) have not been identified by PHG. I hope these comments are useful. Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]]

message: *I've asked FloNight (on her talk page) about this issue's status since PHG seems to have ignored the one offer of mentoring by Angus (see PHG's talk).  — Rlevse • Talk •  11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: I have filed a thread requesting an extension of PHG's topic ban, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Per Honor et Gloria.  --Elonka 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Related AE thread