Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

In early 2008, as part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance case, PHG (talk · contribs) was banned for one year from editing any articles related to medieval or ancient history.

As a quickref on the period of the Crusades that is being discussed, and the two primary POV issues, see User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Other detailed information is also available in my evidence section of the previous case.

A list of scores of articles that require cleanup because of PHG's POV-pushing, was created in January 2008 at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. Dozens of articles have been repaired so far, though several more are still awaiting review. Multiple editors were involved with cleanup at the beginning, but this has trailed off, and over the last few months the work is being done primarily by me, with a couple other editors such as Srnec (talk · contribs) assisting with doublechecks after I cross an item off the list. Mathsci has also been doing an excellent job in repairing and expanding the articles about the Ibelin nobles. --Elonka 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Mathsci correctly describes below, PHG would sometimes make an entire article based on one fringe point of view, and would ignore the other sources involved on that topic. So our cleanup is not a simple matter of removing bias, but also of locating sources and expanding articles so that they give a more well-rounded and neutral view of the topic. A couple prominent examples:

• Sempad the Constable, an extremely important historical figure, but PHG's original version completely ignored everything about this noble's life except the Mongol ambassador portion. PHG's original version, cleaned up and expanded version
• Guy of Ibelin (died 1304): PHG's original version ignored practically everything except the relationship with the Mongols. The article also had multiple other errors, from the birth year being off by decades, adding the wrong wife, and listing the children of a different "Guy of Ibelin". This all caused further tangles which needed to be straightened out. PHG's original version, cleaned up and expanded version

That PHG created the articles, was useful to the project. But the stubs as they existed were serious violations of WP:UNDUE, which has required time-consuming work on the part of other editors to repair. No editor is expected to write a "perfect" article with the first stub. But the problem with PHG's work is that he creates so many stubs so rapidly, and he is careless about neutrality, that it can build up a sort of "walled garden" in the topic area of medieval history, where multiple stub articles all appear to agree with each other and end up presenting a very distorted view of the history at the time. --Elonka 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG has been respecting the terms of his ban by not editing the articles, but is continuing to challenge things at the talkpages. When cleanup was recently (November 2008) attempted at two specific articles, PHG has been continuing to challenge the changes. See:

• Talk:Jacques de Molay#Deletions
• Talk:Guy of Ibelin (died 1304)#Deletions
• Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance#Deletions

PHG's comments[1][2] show that he is continuing to try and give undue weight to primary sources, by accusing other editors of improper deletions. These are the same kinds of claims that he was making last year, which led to the FMA case in the first place. It is disappointing to me that he is continuing this behavior, as my concern is that when his ban is up, he is just going to pick up where he left off, work through all the articles that we have been repairing, and revert them to earlier versions. This makes it very difficult to maintain motivation to continue with cleanup. --Elonka 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another challenge at Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance (warning, this diff is 17K in size). --Elonka 00:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a concern to me that PHG has never indicated that he understands the reasons for his ban. He continues to challenge the findings of the original case, insisting that it was a smear job "improperly orchestrated" by me. He also sprinkles in several other ad hominem comments about other activities of mine on Wikipedia, accusing me of "harassment, off-wiki canvassing and team-tagging".[3] --Elonka 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By means of substantiating this assertion, I refer the Committee to the statement I offered when this matter was presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

The track record of PHG at Commons (he contributes as PHGCOM (talk • contribs)) ought to be considered germane to any evaluation of his current enwiki restrictions. Durova, a Commons administrator and mightily experienced contributor, has compiled a critical analysis of it at User:Durova/Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons. That report details extended analysis of PHG's uploads to Commons. Whilst the majority of his uploads—they number hundreds—are soundly sourced and high in quality, a small proportion of them feature deliberately sparse copyright information. (Again, see Durova's report for substantiation of that claim.)

In some cases, it appears, PHG has deliberately opted to deviate from his usual habit of liberally providing copyright information and instead omitted certain data in order to skirt copyright restrictions. For example in one upload he claimed a photograph was taken in a period "circa 1885"; it was later discovered that the photo could in fact have been taken as late as World War I. (Meaning? PHG has deliberately bended the copyright policy. More on that below.)

An analysis of PHG's contributions on Commons shows him to be an excellent contributor the majority of the time. It also highlights his willingness to bend copyright policy when it suits. With respect for PHG, I am unsure such an individual is one we should be lifting enwiki restrictions from without very sound assurances that the behaviour he has practised, and is practising, on another project whilst restricted here would not continue should the en:wiki restrictions be lifted.

— AGK, Request for Arbitration: "Request for Appeal: PHG".

That PHG has behaved in this fashion on Commons is a poor reflection on the validity of any proposal to loosen sanctions on PHG here on enwiki: an analysis of the evidence compiled by Durova pertaining to PHG's contributions to Commons clearly highlights that there are some issues seriously worth noting with this editor's attitude to contributing.

It is the Committee's purview to make a decision on how suitable allowing PHG a free license to contribute on en:wiki (by means of releasing him from his editing restrictions) is. I suspect this evidence would be information worth factoring in here.

AGK 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw attention to Durova's critical evaluation of PHG's response to her report, located further down this page at #Good news, and encourage the consideration of that piece of evidence in tandem with this one (and, by extension, Durova's report). It would seem the only question yet to be answered is how considerable a thread PHG is to this project's well-being and improvement. "Not much" is a trend constantly developing, I tentatively suggest, but I am unsure whether that sentiment has yet manifested itself enough in PHG's editing to warrant a lifting of the restrictions.

I will be keenly following the developments on this case's Evidence page and, perhaps, analyzing the matter as a whole at a later date and subsequently authoring Workshop proposals (if it is so desired).

AGK 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka has presented instances where PHG used his right to say his opinion, even though he did not touch the articles. In these instances, PHG presented his case and tried to persuade the others about what he felt was right. I see a reasonable discussion. I see that one user (Elonka) believes less material is necessary for articles, I see another user (PHG) wanting to add relevant material to the article. I see no problem in the attitude of either person. I see no particular issue with either belief (more article material or a bit less, more relevant material). I believe that Wikipedia needs different opinions. We need both PHG who wants a bit more and we need an occasional Elonka who will control whether a bit more becomes too much.

I would feel more comfortable if PHG would accept that properly or improperly orchestrated, consensus has been reached about his past actions. But PHG believes he is right. He actually believes that the opinion of people who judged his contributions was wrong. Is this a reason not to remove restrictions? I only care if PHG agrees to play by the rules of Wikipedia. Maybe he gives more weight where most people wouldn't. So what? Others will give the appropriate weight and edit his contributions. Others who may over do it. This is how Wikipedia works. Maybe he believes he is right most of the time. Fine. What would not be fine would be if he would go around and revert all the articles in previous versions. What would not be OK would be if he would engage in edit-warring or in uncivil comments. From his contributions I guess that strong-minded as he may be, he has shown that he can cooperate. I think that lifting all restrictions with a probation period of 6 months would be appropriate. If he goes back to behaviour which is not acceptable, put back some restrictions. If he proves he can work together with others, let him try his best - within the limits of Wikipedia rules - to present the content that he thinks best. Let him argue why he things he is right. Let him show whether he has learned to back off, as he did recently with the photographs form Commons. This is what Wikipedians do.

According to Elonka, PHG created many stub articles which required time-consuming work on the part of other editors to repair. I fail to see why this should be a problem. This is Wikipedia. This is what editors in Wikipedia are doing.

Elonka presents two examples, where the stubs were not balanced and other editors helped make them better. I examined the Revision history of these examples, for the period for which PHG was allowed to work on them.

• Sempad_the_Constable revision history
• Guy_of_Ibelin_(died_1304) revision history

I see that PHG is collaborating or not objecting to any additional material. I see no edit-warring. I see better articles coming up from not balanced stubs. I see Wikipedia with careful editors improving stubs from another editor.

--FocalPoint (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toward the end of RFAR, PHG began to demonstrate a positive response to the concerns about images that I had posted at User:Durova/Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons. That was a difficult report to research and write, and all I've really wanted was to see him adjust to feedback. His basic editing interests are highly encyclopedic. Shortly before the case opened I expressed that here. He has responded with polite and appropriate queries at my user talk.[4][5]

So as of this writing my evaluation is one of cautious optimism. I wrote that report as a sample of how PHG conducts himself at a sister wiki where he is under no restriction, as a sample of the likely result of ending his restriction here. Since that time PHG's interactions with me have been much better than I anticipated. It isn't often that good news comes to the Committee in case evidence. So while it may be too early to express unreserved confidence, he's taking steps in the right direction.

This was revealed on my talk page [6]. However, apparently the terms of ArbCom restrictions prevent him from using French language sources in preparing biographical or historical articles related to French history, unless approved by his mentor Angusmclellan. This should not apply to contemporary sources, in particular official encyclopedic sources such as the Dictionnaire de biographie française, available in its entirety on the website of the Assemblée Nationale. Such a restriction is an impediment to writing balanced biographies of French political figures, such as Charles Rigault de Genouilly or Prosper de Chasseloup-Laubat. Unusally, PHG has been responsible for creating English articles on French history, e.g. with François Caron [7], before they appear on the French wikipedia. A French version of this particular article appeared a year later [8] with a link to the English article [9].

This is clear from a careful scrutiny of the list of articles he has provided himself and from statements he has made himself. In discussions on my talk page he has not expressed great enthusiasm for working within one of the history wikiprojects (I suggested WP:WPMH).

The list he provided shows that he has written a considerable number of articles, including quite a few shorter biographies of military gunmakers. Most of these seem well written and properly sourced. Most recently I looked at Missions Etrangeres de Paris which PHG has worked on extensively since September 2008 (as evidenced by the fact that it is brimming over with fascinating images); it seems well researched, using two recently written French books on the subject, and has a lot more detail than its French counterpart. It covers the period from the mid-seventeenth century to the present.

One problem with PHG is that he has occasionally become fascinated with a hypothetical unconfirmed event in history and allowed a fringe viewpoint to spiral off into a series of spin-off articles. This was clear with Franco-Mongol alliance, a non-event according to academics like the late Sylvia Schein. A whole series of articles were produced. I have done a small amount of editing realated this area (the crusades and the Latin east) which started with a tag left by Elonka on the caption of Fort St Jean in the article on Marseille. I helped to track down translations of papal bulls of Pope Innocent IV; and I have lately been adding information on multiple Guys of Ibelin.

• Biographies of medieval noblemen, such as each Guy of Ibelin, lie outside my area of expertise, but it has been possible to locate primary and secondary sources on the Ibelins. Medieval scholars like User:Adam Bishop can correct any errors that might creep in and add commentary on recent scholarship. In Guy of Ibelin (died 1304), PHG did not properly identify the primary or secondary sources and built the article around one cursory mention, connected with the article Franco-Mongol alliance. This created an unbalanced article which has subsequently been corrected. It should be pointed out that it is hard to write such articles. It was possible to write Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol, but only because of an exceedingly detailed article in French by the scholar Jean Richard.

• 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 also 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 [10] 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. This article 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 (but see my first point on French language sources).

• France-Japan relations also suffers from having only two sources. I cannot tell whether the first source written by Christian Polak is problematic: it is certainly in the Oriental Studies library in the University of Cambridge, several similar university libraries in France and presumably elsewhere. However, using this one source and a Japanese source is not helpful. On the other hand, the spin-off article France-Japan relations (19th century) seems well-written and properly sourced.

• Ongoing postscript: PHG and I have been jointly editing various articles related to the Franco-Siamese War and I have been very pleasantly surprised by his cooperativeness and resourcefulness, while finding myself a little exasperated by other eccentricities such as the quirky use of googlebooks in Japanese for namespace url links; the issues there have been directly related to all the issues already discussed in this section. I apologize for expanding here, but I believe this evidence is important. I have also found that the preemptive edits of Elonka, PHG's main critic, in another of the medieval articles, Hethum II, King of Armenia, have problems: [11], [12], [13]. They were WP:POINTy, not properly sourced, slightly inaccurate and editorializing, giving undue weight to a single ambiguous event; at present the nature of and motives for Hethum's assassination, which is well chronicled, are poorly described; and the Islamic conversion of the Ilkhans and their usefulness in providing protection against attacks on their subject state Cilicia, discussed at length in the sources, are not mentioned. To be fair this contribution was probably a response to this spin-off article of PHG [14], which highlights the problems medieval historians have in evaluating sources: in his 2001 book, Angus Stewart has severely criticized the cavalier attitude towards Arab sources of Sylvia Schein, one of the main writers on Franco-Mongol relations. This makes it hard for non-expert WP editors to write articles on this topic.

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. 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.

In the case of the Indo-Greek page, PHG's contributions did not rely on few or fringe sources, as he has been accused of so frequently. The reference list and footnotes[15] of the Indo-Greek page which he mostly constructed bears ample evidence to PHG's attempts to balance different views. Despite this, when these other users - such as Elonka - insisted on adding new sections to the page, PHG often accepted such changes in a constructive and cooperative spirit, despite the harsh tone on the discussion page. Some of these suggestions did admittedly improve the article, which is now very informative if somewhat heavy to read for a layman with so much information and critical discussion. Still, it is a very difficult subject.

I do not recognise the accusations against PHG from my work with him on the Indo-Greek page. Even though he was certainly not right in all cases, I think he responded reasonably to criticism, was keen to keep the balance between different sources and showed great patience when was pressured by a relatively small number of users. Sponsianus (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my past exchanges with PHG I believe that PHG can learn from his mistakes and be a net asset to Wikipedia. PHG is a talented and prolific editor. Others have expressed reservations regarding some of his stubs. A stub is by definition a biased article because it only contains information about a small portion of the subject matter, because a stub is by definition a small article. In my opinion applying WP:UNDUE on a stub is useless because this method only confirms the obvious, i.e. that all stub articles are biased. In my view a stub article is like a seed of knowledge. You plant the seed and you see others attracted to the new article, because any article, even a stub, is an attractor of the imagination. People get attracted to the article, they add new material, expand it, balance it and the article, in time, matures and becomes a thing of collaborative beauty. That's what Wikipedia is all about. If PHG plants a seed we should thank him. Accusing him of creating an unbalanced stub is like accusing a father because his toddler is being clumsy. It's just not fair. PHG may have strong opinions and he may also express them strongly from time to time. But we cannot accuse him of pushing his POV and especially on talk pages. This is called discussion, definitely not POV pushing. It is also called the free exchange of ideas among peers. In a talk page everyone is pushing their ideas, their POV. That's normal and in fact it shoulb be welcome. Actual POV pushing occurs on article space and by edit warring. As far as I can tell PHG does not engage in such behaviour. As Durova commented about PHG's promising behaviour, I too believe that PHG can learn from his past mistakes and can find his path. Keeping restrictions on PHG is , at this stage, unnecessary,

From this diff we can see that when a user asked PHG about permission for using one of his images and details for attributing PHG's name etc. PHG replied: "Just write "Wikipedia"". In my book that's as selfless as it gets.

--Dr.K. (logos) 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section from the Indo-Greek talk page is characteristic of PHG's approach, and may be clear to those without background in the subject. It begins with PHG calling a paragraph with four footnotes (all to sources) original research, and noting his removal of it from the article. Sponsianus was nice enough to describe the paragraph as "rather accurate". PHG continued to argue, revealing in the process that he didn't know Greek from Latin.

The discussion is in chronological order. I know ArbCom would prefer diffs; but this is from October 2007, before the Franco-Mongol case, and I'm not sure how much they are interested in it. I trust it will be clear enough. (Please write me.)

I believe this to be characteristic of PHG's approach to the Indo-Greeks: he had a single narrative and he warred with any information that got in its way.

• 17:40, 2 October 2007 from the Featured Article review. Describes content dispute as vandalism.

For what it is worth, I disagree with both sides on the content dispute; roughly, of three principal authors on the subject, PHG would like to follow Tarn, who wrote in 1938, and held one extreme view; Devanampriya would like to follow Narain, who wrote in 1957 and thereafter, and reacted against Tarn into the opposite extreme view; Bopearchchi, in the 1990's, has elaborated an extremely complex, and even more conjectural, middle view. I should like the article to contain all three. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K's instance of "selflessness" could just as well be read as egotism: PHG = Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG's behaviour on the Indo-Greeks is before (and during the hearing of) the FMA case. I comment on it only to respond to Sponsianus' comment on the same material; ArbCom may wish to ignore both of us - and Dr. K - together. On the other hand, if PHG has obeyed the topic ban, there will be no recent evidence of his behaviour.

I like the idea of narrowing the ban to the issues on which PHG has caused comment before; on the other hand, there may well be other obscure topics on which he holds unconventional opinions. If the ban is narrowed, it should include the standard boilerplate about letting "any uninvolved admin" extend it to a new topic within ancient and medieval history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG has made these edits to Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom.

• March 19
• July 30
• July 31, 05:14
• July 31, 06:09

Of these, the first and third are social, although they both show his continued interest in the map question; the second and fourth both push maps showing a version of Indo-Greek history which has the Greeks making wide-ranging campaigns to points east of Ujjain and far down the Ganges. The last links to this map, which shows prima facie a pincer movement which makes the campaigns simultaneous. That was Tarn's 1938 view; it has been reprinted in some more recent tertiary sources; but it is very far from being the consensus of modern scholarship.

Compare Sponsianus' comment on October 30, 2007: Tarn's evidence on conquests east of Ujjain is weak, and there has since been a single coin find. He would prefer a map which omitted Ujjain, and showed the port of Barygaza as a Greek trading center, not necessarily part of the kingdom - as the written sources suggest. (Mathura is more complicated, but the modern view appears to be that the boundary ran not far east of the town, which this map does not mention at all.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment to my talkpage demonstrates what PHG will do with evidence. He quotes a source (one on Indian literature, not numismatics or military history, btw) as saying A distinctive series of Indo-Greek coins has been found at several places in central India: including at Dewas, some 22 miles to the east of Ujjain. These therefore add further definite support to the likelihood of an Indo-Greek presence in Malwa as a response to the evidence above. But this source is cherry-picked and off-topic, and the map at issue shows not just presence, but an advance through, and battles in Malwa. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not present this as a call for sanctions, merely as an answer to those comments that having an unrestrained PHG back among us will be an unalloyed blessing. (Mostly amusement value, really.)

On Talk:Roger I of Sicily#Images, immediately after the RfAr we are reviewing, PHG complained vigorously of the removal of "several important images" from the article. He eventually stopped protesting Srnec's assurances that they are nineteenth-century "historical" paintings which there is no reason to believe accurate (as they evidently are). I sympathize with the waste of good scanning time, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging PHG to consult English sources may have the good effect of showing him what things are called in English, and what needs to be explained to anglophones. Canon de 12 Gribeauval may be an unavoidable title, but it should not refer to its subject as a "French canon [sic]" with a single n, it should specify whether the measurement is its caliber (as it appears to be - in pouces), and it should use the English Year II of the Republic (or possibly 1794). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not evidence in the normal sense, but rather a point of view. PHG is a valuable contributor, whose first language is French, who is fluent in Japanese, and who contributes many images on en.wiki and commons; this is a person who (potentially) can make a unique and valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. In fact, PHG has already made many valuable contibutions, and we should be grateful for this.

However, PHG also holds some idiosyncratic opinons about cultural interactions in the medieval, early modern, and (possibly) modern periods, which must be subject to careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, PHG seems to be quite resistant to constructive criticism. Instead, when other editors feel that PHG holds a non-mainstream opinon, PHG blames this on prejudice (e.g. [16]) rather than examining his own behavior and use of sources.

Since PHG is reluctant to see that his editing is a problem, and instead prefers to think that the geographic, national, or gendered preferences of other users cause problems for him, I must strongly recommend that his topic ban continue. Furthermore, since PHG stridently refuses to consider whether his editing is problematic, I must recommend that his topic ban be extended to indefinite. Let him make recommendations on talk pages about the future direction of articles in medieval or ancient history, but let's refrain from allowing him to insert his idiosyncratic views on these subjects without input by other users. We have too many articles that take an excessively sympathetic slant towards fringe views; we don't need a slew of articles that assert that western European relations with the Mongol Empire were the dominant issue in Medieval diplomatic history.

By the way, I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion on the mess at Indo-Greek kingdom, but let me say that there, as in articles on medieval Europe, PHG seems to have decided that the correct view is one (and only one) interpretation of primary and seconary sources, other interpretations (and other editors) be damned. (Here, I'm echoing the evidence given by PMAnderson above.) The result is...well, the kindest thing one can say is that it's not in accord with WP:NPOV. It's certainly not anything that would be a useful resource for a college/university history course. Instead, we have an article that gives short shrift to the range of opinons about Greek influence in Bactria and India, and is a bad resource for researchers and students. And I thought that was our goal, to be a useful reference work... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently PHG's mentor. I do not monitor his every edit, but I do check on his new articles periodically as well as answering his questions regarding sources. Most of my comments here address other claims on this page and do not constitute evidence as such.

The remedies in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance [FMA] case imposed editing restrictions on PHG. The committee revisited the remedies when appointing a mentor for PHG.

A considerable part of the evidence presented to date refers to events prior to the FMA case. This includes all of the following sections:

• #Cleanup efforts are still not completed from the last case (Elonka)
• #PHG created many stub articles which violated WP:UNDUE (Elonka)
• #Evidence presented by Sponsianus (Sposianus)
• #Treatement of evidence (Pmanderson)
• #Evidence presented by User:Akhilleus (Akhilleus)

Now it may be that the committee will wish to reconsider the remedies at this time. For myself, I am concerned that Elonka's evidence in #PHG is continuing to engage in POV-pushing suggests that PHG has not truly accepted the lessons of the FMA case. In view of Elonka's evidence, I would not ask for the committee to reconsider the duration of the remedies, but I would ask the committee to consider whether the topic ban might be narrowed so as to include only the specific problem areas identified by the evidence, that is the intersections of Hellenistic Period and India, and of the Crusades and Crusader States and the Mongol Empire[s], broadly defined.

I quote:

The Arbitration Committee is a panel of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes... [First sentence of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, emphasis added.]

From this we may conclude that #Evidence presented by AGK is of doubtful relevance and the rebuttal at #Evidence presented by Durova also.

I accept that it is fair to say that the article on Charles Rigault de Genouilly, for example, was narrowly focussed. Having said that, more than two-thirds of Granier's biography of Rigault (Granier, Hubert, Histoire des marins français 1815-1870, "Charles Rigault de Genouilly" @ 329-64) deals with his actions in Indo-China. I would have been concerned had the article not concentrated on this aspect of Rigault's career.

I share Mathsci's concerns over the primary-sourciness of Siege of Bangkok, but some minor tweaking to make it clearer when it's a historian saying X or Desfarges, De la Touche, De Bèze who said it 300+ years ago is really all that's needed. There are more works available on the topic which are not currently reflected in the article, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is in no sense a violation of policy or guidelines to produce an incomplete or "unfinished" article.

If PHG were to engage in WP:OWNership, to prevent others improving the articles which he creates then there would be a problem for the committee to consider. I myself see no evidence of this sort of behaviour outwith those areas which were identified in the FMA case and none has been submitted.

PHG's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#Statement by PHG under the subheading "(3) Suspicions of harassment, off-wiki canvassing and team-tagging" justify Elonka's conclusions in #PHG still appears not to understand the reasons for his ban. Evidently this is a matter for concern. On the other hand, Elonka's other evidence shows no sign on her part of being willing to forgive and forget PHG's past errors, for which he has already been sanctioned by this committee. This is contrary to the good advice at Wikipedia:Forgive and forget and meatball:ForgiveAndForget. This too is a matter for concern.

PHG's past errors of judgement should not be used as a badge of shame. Elonka's praiseworthy efforts in making FMA-related articles comply with policies and guidelines should not be portrayed as a witchhunt. Both parties need to move on. And if they cannot, dispute resolution should be employed before bringing the matter to this committee.

It is my view that this block of PHG by AGK - to which this comment refers - was an error and should be struck from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Log of blocks and bans. No reasonable person would consider relations between France and Japan in the C19th to be "relating to medieval or ancient history". I ask that this be removed from the list by AGK. Failing this, I ask that the committee direct that it be removed.

I believe it was an error on PHG's part to request this review, and had he asked my advice I would have told him that. I do not believe that PHG has fully absorbed the lessons of the FMA case and until such time as he has done so it will be inappropriate to lift the remedies listed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Remedies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be as transparent as I can. As I wrote in my initital appeal statement when I asked for this case to be opened (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/PHG#Statement by PHG), I think that a large part of the Arbcom ruling against me was based on orchestration and misrepresentation of my edits by User:Elonka, and on a faulty “independent verification of sources” by User:Sam Blacketer. I nonetheless believe that there may have been some issues in my editing, some weaknesses that were exploited to the utmost by a few, and that the ruling, besides its disproportionate response, also had beneficial effects with my editing.

Most of my edits have always been extremely civil, my worst "incivility" being something like writing about "Elonka’s mad circus of accusations" against me (which is not even a personal attack, but a description of a person’s actions). I’ve had to suffer some very aggressive attacks, and most of time managed to respond in a cool manner, but sometimes it happens that one word can be perceived as stronger (as above). Even Elonka once wrote "PHG is generally extremely civil". Please look again at the Arbcom evidence, I think there is not a single case of outright incivility. On the contrary, I’ ve had to suffer libelous attacks, as when Elonka described me as a "Freemason" (???) or "probably a Buddhist cultist" (???) [17].

Since the ruling however, I’ve learnt to be extra-extra-careful in describing people or their actions, and I’ve learnt to be extremely polite and cheerful whatever the circumstances, which is a good thing. I think I am probably beyond reproach in terms of civility now :) Thanks to the Arbcom for that.

I believe my sourcing to be generally quite rigorous. User:Sam Blacketer has confirmed that all my references existed, he only disputes some of their interpretations (See: Report on use of sources by Sam Blacketer). I think the worst case where my interpretation was disputed was when I sourced a sentence by historian Peter Jackson: "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagen ruler as His instrument" (The Mongols and the West, p.173) in a paragraph about rumors, which I took to meaning that he considered the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols as a fact, and the exploitation made by Pope Boniface as "stories", but several other editors disagreed with this interpretation. Of course, numerous historians, such as Alain Demurger consider the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongol in 1299/1300 as a fact. The Arbcom kindly recognized that I am editing in good faith [18], and I can confirm such variations in interpretations were indeed done in good faith.

Since the Arbcom ruling however, I’ve tried to be extra careful with sources. I have basically stopped using little-know material that might be challenged. I am essentially relying on widely-available material I own, and relying much more on Google Books, so that anyone can check the sources easily. Thanks to the Arbcom for that.

In all honesty, I must recognize I may sometimes have been over-enthusiastic about the subjects I wrote about, and may sometimes have seen more in the material I was reading than was really there. I apologize for that, and I’ve been trying, and continue to try to be more objective and balanced in my sourcing.

I’ve always been very proud of my work on Wikipedia, and probably felt quite slighted when criticized on some contributions. I may have been too sanguine in defending my cause sometimes, when it would have been better just to relax a bit.

Since then, I’ve learnt to distance myself from this whole Wikipedia thing, and not take discussions too personally. It’s still sometimes difficult to accept when a user destroys vast amounts of referenced material [19], but I’ve learnt to dispute such actions in a cool manner :) Thank to the Arbcom for that.

Arbitor Cool Hand Luke has now completed his independent review of the evidence here. It basically shows that my contributions have been based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what has been claimed. PHG (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wish that the Arbcom also recognizes that its response may have been disproportionate. This combines to the fact that my editing has improved significantly and that I have continued making a huge amount of quality contributions over the last 9 months (see list). According to the the Arbcom resolution I only have 3 months remaining until all my restrictions are completely lifted (15 March 2009) [20], but I would like to suggest that these remaining restrictions should be reviewed nonetheless in light of the above evidence, so that I can be fully rehabilitated, and if possible have my restrictions lifted before their normal term. I am probably one of the most dedicated contributors to en:Wikipedia and Commons, even though I am not even writing in my mother tongue. I've been pursued by one user, possibly because of misplaced religious prejudice (documented above). I guess this is part of the Wikipedia experience though, so be it, but please let’s turn a page and move to a more descent handling of one of your most dedicated contributors. Best regards to all PHG (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I ought to express a view on this issue at all, as I have only been contributing to Wikipedia for six months, but for what it is worth I have found PHG during this short period to be a very helpful and friendly fellow-contributor. We have cooperated on a number of articles on Vietnamese history (nearly all related either to the Sino-French War or the earlier Cochinchina campaign), and PHG has found a lot of useful information and images that he has added to articles basically created and maintained by myself. As I have made a speciality study of the Sino-French War, I have sometimes discovered errors in otherwise reputable sources used by PHG, and PHG has never made any objection to having these errors corrected. His most amiable habit, in my view, is to suggest amendments to my work by contacting me on my user page rather than simply editing what I have written. As a newcomer to Wikipedia I have been at times shocked by the level of hostility and unreason displayed by some contributors, and a couple of months back was wondering whether I really enjoyed being part of the Wikipedia project. PHG warmly encouraged me to continue contributing, and in retrospect I can see that he had a decisive influence on my decision to bear with things. I think his commitment and his enthusiasm should be acknowledged and encouraged.

Djwilms (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG has repeatedly used the talk page of one of his favourite articles as a playground to present article ideas of his, in the hope that others would take them up and actually create those articles (nothing inherently wrong with that, of course). His last attempt was titled Mongol textiles in Renaissance art, based on Rosamond E. Mack's Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art. Since I don't have that book I at first criticezed his proposal on mostly formal grounds. The discussion then continued on User Srnec's talk page, where PHG pointed out that the source can be viewed in Google books and indicated several of the example paintings that we have on Commons.

Now that I had the full information, I took the effort and went through the source with a fine toothed comb, trying to find the information there that PHG had drawn from it. The result of that analysis is depressing. The topic "Mongol textiles in Renaissance art" doesn't actually exist in the source, other than in a few tidbits of information only ephemerally related to the real topic of the book. What PHG did (among other things) was to equate the word "Tatar" with "Mongol". In reality, that term in medieval use is almost exactly equivalent (and similarly vague) to our modern word "oriental", and includes pretty much everything east of the Bosporus. He also seems to assume that any product originating from Mongol-ruled territories must automatically have been a Mongol product. What he proposed as an article text based on those fundamental fallacies is almost completely detached from the historic reality.

I primarily edit Mongolia related topics, so I had the opportunity to observe this pattern of editing for several years now. PHG is obsessed with the idea of connecting the Mongols with Europe in whatever ways he can think of. This makes him look at sources through strangely coloured glasses, causes him to see things that simply aren't there for other readers, and to ignore anything that would contradict his pet theories. As has been noted further above, he apparently believes he is right in doing so, and defends his views in the most polite form he can (actually annoyingly over-polite at times). He has managed to admit "two or three" past mistakes, but nothing in his way of looking at historical topics has changed since he was banned from editing them. He seems completely unable to put information found in sources into the correct context, or to assign it an appropriate weight. Based on this experience, my prognosis for when (if) his ban is lifted is that he will pick up exactly where he was stopped, continuing to cause the same type of damage to Wikipedia as he has in the past. --Latebird (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is of the nature of personal testimony. Publications involve cooperation between two classes: writers and editors. Enmity between these is classic, but both are essential for quality. A few people are excellent writers and also self-edit well, but, more often, "A writer who edits himself has a fool for a publisher." PHG is a truly excellent writer. His voluminous article creations I've found fascinating, among our best, usually well-grounded in fact and reasonably sourced. However, like nearly all writers, he will write from his own knowledge. When a writer holds an idiosyncratic idea, sources may be perceived as supporting this idea, when an objective examination would find them less clear. Even the best experts sometimes have such blind spots. If solid collaboration with fact-checkers and editors is missing, such an expert may perceive those who challenge his work as ignorant or even ill-intentioned, a formula for conflict.

The appropriate response is collaborative and civil fact-checking and editing by others. On the one hand, the writer is properly restrained from incivility, for incivility poisons the process by which we find NPOV. On the other, what I've seen with PHG is that, in spite of the measured and cautious conclusions of the original arbitration, he was, in its enforcement, accused of bad faith, of deliberately distorting sources, and of creating immoderate need for cleanup. A good and very active writer, i.e., PHG, will create a lot of need for cleanup (but compared to what? The same volume of contributions from average editors?). Editing can take longer and be more work than writing, but good writing is hard to find. PHG can assist in this process by making access to his sources easier. I found restrictions on his use of obscure sources as being inappropriate, because the committee found AGF continued to apply to PHG, so those who question his faithfulness to source should ask for assistance: PHG, I believe, could be trusted to provide exact quotations. Where he has translated, he can be requested to provide the original language. When editors doubt sources, they may remove questionable material pending verification, for a claim considered dubious. PHG may request assistance and collaborative verification and not merely assert his own position.

Those of us who are focused on editorial responsibilities, i.e., neutrality, avoidance of original research, and other proprieties, seem to have been demanding that PHG do our job. He is a volunteer, what he does contribute is excellent, and we should be grateful for it. The shortage of serious editorial support, of those willing and able to do the hard work involved in fact-checking and careful editing toward policy conformance, is a problem that afflicts the entire project. If PHG's work really were a serious problem, we would also rationally restrict the voluminous contributions of IP editors and all the relatively inactive accounts. PHG's "messes" requiring "cleanup" are paragons of neutrality and proper sourcing, comparatively.

There have been problems with civility and restraint; however, I do not see evidence that PHG has gone beyond limits such that any incivility sanctions are needed, beyond the reminders already issued. Compared to some of the charges against him, he's been relatively civil. He is also charged with "POV pushing." However, reasoned and civil debate in Talk, which *must* include POV advocacy, is not contrary to our policies and, indeed, is a necessary part of our process for the discovery and expression of deep and full NPOV. It is enough, in my view, that PHG have a mentor or mentors, and that he is responsive to them; and that the community restrain all editors involved when they stray into incivility and especially into edit warring.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.