Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

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 may edit /Proposed decision.

Overview

PHG ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been exhibiting WP:OWN behavior on multiple articles, most notably at Franco-Mongol alliance. Some of the information that he has added is good, but much is pseudohistory that violates WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. PHG has been pushing very specific fringe theories about medieval history, especially about an alleged Mongol alliance with Europe, and then an alleged joint conquest of Jerusalem. To support his view, PHG has been adding more and more cherry-picked, primary, misquoted, or otherwise unreliable sources, to the point where the article was nearly 200K in size. [1]. When anyone attempts to change or condense his work, he reverts them, never actually violating 3RR, but instead engaging in "slow revert" wars that systematically restore an article to his preferred version.

Various other editors with experience in the topic area, have attempted to help with cleanup or talkpage discussions, but all attempts to work in good faith with PHG have been unsuccessful. No matter what consensus is built at the talkpage, PHG refuses to ever admit that there is a consensus, and refuses to even acknowledge that his behavior has been a problem. He simply continues to argue and edit-war. He has ignored messages to his user talkpage, dismissed the results of the article content RfC, and has further muddled the issue by making false charges at ANI, or charging harassment. Meanwhile he continues to make POV forks and insert biased information into multiple articles, in defiance of multiple complaints from other editors.

We now have dozens of articles which need complex cleanup, and PHG is continuing to cause more problems on a near daily basis.

The thing that is of most concern about all this, is the longterm damage that PHG is causing to Wikipedia, because of the way that his information always looks well-sourced. He has received "well-researched" praise, [2] [3] received barnstars, [4] [5] and had some of his articles show up on DYK, [6] even though the articles were full of biased or false information. Further, with all of these problems that we have discovered just in his work about the Mongols, I think it is very likely that similar problems will be found in other of PHG's efforts as well, but it is going to require someone actually digging in and looking at the sources to find the truth and identify the areas that need cleanup. One article, Indo-Greek Kingdom, was delisted from FA after a long fight. [7] It was also recently discovered that PHG has been uploading dozens of images which have copyright problems, [8] [9] and that he was blocked on Commons. [10]

In summary: PHG is one of the more dangerous types of editors that we can have on Wikipedia. He inserts false information into the project, in ways that make the information difficult to identify, and difficult to remove. He refuses to work towards consensus. He ignores all good-faith warnings. He wastes the time of many other good editors, who could be spending time on far more productive pursuits than having to clean up after him. I do appreciate that PHG has done some good work on Wikipedia, but I do not think that this balances out all the damage that he is causing at the same time. It is my opinion that unless he agrees to change his behavior, that he should be removed from the project.

Details below:

History quickref

• Brief "crib notes" summary on the medieval history involved: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref

• Quotes from various historians: User:Elonka/Mongol historians

PHG has created multiple POV forks

PHG has been creating many POV forks and WP:COATRACK articles, into which he is continuing to put biased and highly questionable information. Several of PHG's POV forks have had to be put through XfD to be deleted. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

PHG has been inserting biased information into dozens of different Wikipedia articles: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review (see associated diffs for examples). Bias includes such edits as:

• Knights Templar [16], adding "The Mongol khan ... allied with the Armenian, the Templiers and the Hospitaliers, defeated the Mamluks in the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar in December 1299. They took Jerusalem by surprise that same year, but Ghazan had to leave with his troops because of another conflict in his rear. Jacques Molay, left alone in Jerusalem tried to rebuild the fortifications which had been dismantled by the Mamluks, but he ultimately had to leave the city in 1300 to avoid a disaster, waiting in vain for reinforcements from Europe." (Actual mainstream history: No alliance with Templars/Hospitallers, no battle for Jerusalem in 1300, let alone it being "taken by surprise." Jacques de Molay was never even in Jerusalem, let alone left there to rebuild fortifications)
• Jacques de Molay [17] "Mongol allies in control of Jerusalem in 1299/1300" (actual mainstream history: no conquering of Jerusalem, and further, we shouldn't be using a painting in Versailles as any kind of source for a battle)
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304) (since deleted).
  • Included text in the lead such as "Laurent Dailliez in Les Templiers explains that the Templars allied with the Mongols and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them" (Actual mainstream history: No treaty, and as shown by consensus at Talk:Laurent Dailliez, Dailliez is not a reliable source)
  • "According to Peter Jackson in 'The Mongols and the West', the Mongols liberated the Holy City." (reality: Jackson included a list of rumors during 1300 in his book, one of which was that people at the time thought that the Mongols had conquered Jerusalem. Jackson never stated it as fact.) [18]
• Viam agnoscere veritatis. Cherry-picked quotes from multiple books which were not all about the same thing, to try and make an article that appeared to be about one single document. PHG claimed that no one disputed that it was one single document. [19] However, the reality is that there were multiple documents, and PHG was not only picking and choosing portions from each one, he was also claiming that the Latin said things which it did not (see Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis for details)
  • (amending statement, per Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis) -- El on ka 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

PHG has misused sources

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop#Response by Elonka for detailed evidence with a dozen examples. -- El on ka 06:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

PHG has repeatedly edit warred, defying all other editors

A clear consensus has been confirmed at the article talkpage to condense the article: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 5#Consensus poll. PHG, however, continues to deny that there is consensus, [20] and continues to edit-war, trying to revert the article to his 200K version. He never violates 3RR, but instead does reverts every 24 hours. Multiple editors have confirmed consensus by reverting back to the condensed version, but PHG just keeps right on reverting, until he's blocked, then he comes back from the block and (unless the page is protected) starts reverting again:

• January 20, 06:17 (reverted by Shell Kinney) [21]
• January 21, 05:33 (reverted by Elonka) [22]
• January 22, 06:07 (reverted by Elonka) [23]
• January 23, 06:00 (reverted by WJBscribe) [24]
• January 24, 05:16 (reverted by Aramgar) [25]
• January 25, 05:07 (reverted by Aramgar) [26]

(PHG blocked January 25 by Ioeth [27])

(page protected from January 26 - February 3)

• February 3, 13:57 (reverted by Kafka Liz) [28]
• February 6, 10:45 (reverted by Aramgar) [29]

(PHG blocked February 6 by Rlevse) [30]

Even during this ArbCom case, PHG continues with a slow revert war, trying to re-add a "disputed" tag to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, despite talkpage consensus [31] to the contrary.

• February 29: [32] (removed by Elonka) [33]
• March 1: [34] (removed by Shell Kinney) [35]
• March 4: [36] (removed by Kafka Liz) [37]
• March 8: (edit summary accuses of trying to "suppress the views of major historians") (removed by Elonka) [38]

PHG has ignored complaints from multiple editors

Many editors have taken the time to post at PHG's talkpage, expressing concerns about his behavior: (Elonka) (Geogre) (Adam Bishop) [39] (WJBscribe) (Ioeth) [40] (Aramgar) (Kafka Liz) [41] (Srnec) (Eupator) (Shell Kinney) [42] (Luna Santin) (Jehochman) (Orderinchaos)

PHG makes personal attacks

In other disputes, such as on the Indo-Greek Kingdom article, PHG routinely referred to other editors as "vandals" [43] if they tried to change his work.

In the Franco-Mongol alliance dispute, PHG has made accusations such as:

• "perjury ... dogmatism, harassment patterns and lack of ethic behaviour"
• "harassment and systematic stalking"
• "Elonka seems to have an almost maniac taste for personal attacks"
• "Elonka's mad circus of accusations ... she is beyond her mind"
• Stated that archiving a talkpage was "disruptive and unethical" ... "tampering with the evidence is a criminal offense"
• "Elonka has been slandering me extensively"

Timeline

• August 26, 2007: PHG creates the article Mongol relations with Europe. [44] A few minutes later he moves it to Franco-Mongol alliance [45]. The article is full of biased information and pseudohistory sources. (see other evidence for examples of bias)
• August 29, 2007: PHG adds a link to "Franco-Mongol alliance", plus other pseudohistory alliance and "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem" info to other articles, such as to Knights Templar. [46]
• September 2, 2007: Without any attempt at Peer Review or GA, PHG submits his one-week-old Franco-Mongol alliance article for Featured status ( article at that time)
  • The article appeared to be well-sourced and received no strong objections in the FA nom: [47]
  • For an example of pseudohistory at the time, see the " Joint conquest of Jerusalem" section, "Jerusalem capture by surprise"
• September 6, 2007: Elonka, whose attention had been drawn from the pseudohistory insertion at Knights Templar, expresses concerns at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, [48] and the FA nom . [49]
  • PHG makes minor changes, ignores the big ones, and marks Elonka's concerns as {{ done}} [50]
  • Elonka expands upon concerns [51]
  • PHG again inappropriately marks "done" [52]
  • Elonka further expands upon concerns, [53] and begins editing the "Franco-Mongol alliance" article.
  • PHG violates WP:OWN
    • Typically, when Elonka deletes something, PHG reverts with an edit summary such as "reinstating deleted material" [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
    • Typically, when Elonka adds something, PHG deletes it with edit summaries such as "Original research" or "NPOV", when in actuality he was re-inserting his own biased wording. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]
• September 8–11, 2007: Elonka requests comments from various WikiProjects and related articles. [68] [69] [70] [71]
• September 14-16, 2007: Elonka repeatedly suggests mediation. [72] [73] [74] PHG initially ignores requests, and then openly refuses. [75]
  • Elonka files a formal RfC: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3#Request for comment. PHG ignores the results.
• September 21, 2007
  • Elonka files a report at the WP:FRINGE noticeboard
• September 28, 2007
  • PHG created the POV fork Mongol conquest of Jerusalem
  • Danny ( talk · contribs) moves the article to Alleged Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. [76]
  • PHG moved the article to Mongol conquests and Jerusalem
  • Elonka moved the article to a more neutral title, Mongol raids into Palestine.
  • PHG re-created the article by expanding the redirect Mongol conquests and Jerusalem back into an article.
• September 29, 2007
  • Elonka posts complaint at ANI: "POV-pushing by User:PHG"
  • Mongol conquests and Jerusalem sent to AfD by Jehochman. [77]
• September 30, 2007: During the AfD, PHG moved "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem" to Mongol raids on Jerusalem
• October 3, 2007: PHG files separate ANI thread "Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka"
  • ANI threads dissolve into chaos and wind down with general consensus of "Content dispute, go away"
  • Elonka files request for Mediation. PHG reluctantly agrees.
• October 9, 2007 AfD of Mongol conquests and Jerusalem closed as "delete" [78]
• October 24, 2007: Elonka creates subpage to work on a new version: User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance
• November 1, 2007: Elonka announces her subpage to interested editors, and invites feedback. [79]
• December 4, 2007, Mediation closed as "unlikely to produce result" [80]
• December 10, 2007, PHG created another article, Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300).
• December 13, 2007:
  • PHG disrupts Elonka's RfA
  • PHG is blocked by Bearian ( talk · contribs) for disruption. [81]
  • Mediator Tariqabjotu (!) files a complaint at ANI about the block. [82]
  • Jehochman overturns block [83]
• December 14, 2007, PHG created Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations), as a POV fork to split out content from Franco-Mongol alliance that was in dispute.
• December 21, 2007: Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) speedy-deleted by Geogre ( talk · contribs) as "attempt to re-create deleted content" [84]
• January 1, 2008: PHG starts ANI thread "Harassment by User:Elonka" (note, Elonka had been offline for holidays at the time, and had done nothing Mongol-related since December 22 [85])
• January 15, 2008, PHG created three more POV forks from the Franco-Mongol alliance article [86] [87] [88]
• January 17, 2008
  • PHG created Template:Mongol alliances
  • All the remaining POV forks, plus the template, were sent to XfD: [89] [90] [91]
• January 18, 2008, PHG created another POV fork, Mongol alliances in the Middle-East, which was sent to AfD immediately. [92]
• January 20, 2008
  • After six weeks of review and consensus-building, Elonka begins implementing consensus rewrite, condensing Franco-Mongol alliance from 200K to 70K. [93]
  • PHG reverts within an hour. [94] Other editors attempt to enforce the rewrite ( evidence) but PHG continues reverting, sometimes adding new information during his "reinstatements" [95]
• January 23, 2008, XfDs closed as "delete", [96] [97] [98] [99]
• January 25, 2008: After edit-warring ( evidence), PHG blocked for 24 hours by Ioeth ( talk · contribs) for disruption [100]
• January 26, 2008:
  • Within 30 minutes of the end of his block, PHG goes to Elonka's talkpage and demands that she resign as administrator. [101]
  • PHG starts ANI thread: "Page hijacking by Elonka"
• January 27, 2008: PHG re-created two articles in his userspace, both of which he is continuing to edit:
  • User:PHG/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East
  • User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)
• February 6, 2008: After more edit-warring ( evidence), PHG blocked for 31 hours by Rlevse ( talk · contribs) for disruption [102]

-- El on ka 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Affected articles

• Articles that are in bold mean that they definitely have text, usually added by User:PHG, which needs to be reviewed
• Articles that are crossed out have been reviewed and/or fixed, as regards POV or WP:UNDUE questions
• Articles in italics are ambiguous and need a second editor's opinion
• Articles in plain text have not yet been reviewed

Note: Now that the case is closed (01:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)), this list is no longer being updated. For the most current version, please see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review

Updated: 09:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Franco-Mongol alliance

The subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance is treated by numerous historians of the middle-ages (covering a period between 1250 to circa. 1330). Many historians do consider the alliance as fact, complete with numerous embassies, promisses of combined actions and cases of actual military collaboration on the field ( User:PHG/Alliance), while others stress that the alliance was ultimately a failure and some dispute an alliance ever happened. While this should be easy to deal with from a Wikipedia:NPOV perspective, outline each significant opinion, Elonka has been insisting on only one side of the story (that the alliance did not happen), and has been mounting extremely virulent personal attacks to press her point. I even recently got a "PHG is one of the more dangerous types of editors that we can have on Wikipedia" [117]. This is getting almost comical... but it also tells a lot about the state of mind of that user.

Elonka's breach of Mediation agreement

I tried hard to accomodate Elonka in Mediation ( User:tariqabjotu could talk about that), and we even managed to make an agreement on the long-disputed introduction sentence ( [118]), but Elonka broke our agreemeent as soon as she felt she could gain support to return to her original stance. Hard to work with somebody who does not keep her word...

POV fork? No, just article creation

All I write is based on properly published sources. Since August last year, I've enjoyed developing content about the Mongols in the Middle-East. Some of the new articles I created were actually based on insistent requests by Elonka to split/reduce the main Franco-Mongol alliance article ( [119] [120]). But as soon as I created them, she attacked them for POV-fork. Nice and fair isn't that?

Edit warring? No, proper implementation of Wikipedia rules

If a major change (such as deleting 120k of content and 300 academic ressources) does not have a consensus, the Status quo should prevail. Elonka has been, with a few users, trying to impose her 70k summary rewrite, inspite of having no consensus ( [121], [122]). Elonka has been continuously claiming consensus when there is none. I am a Wikipedian since 2004, and when a basic Wikipedia rule is not respected, I defend it on the Talk Page and reinstate the proper state of things (in this case the original 200k article).

Copyright issue?

It is almost funny to see how Elonka will try to raise any possible issue to try to discredit an opponent. So now... Wikipedia Commons. I am a heavy contributor to Commons as I have been providing hundreds (thousands?) of photographs from Museums around the world. Elonka once attacked me violently for PD-Art uploads, until she apparently realized what PD-Art was about ( [123]). Again a case of aggressively and wrongfully slandering somebody, and just go on to something else without an excuse when it proves undefendable. There is currently a discussion with Durova about handdrawings from picture of ancient artefacts. We'll see where that goes, and, fine, if this proves inappropriate we'll delete or recycle under fair use. That's everyday stuff when you upload large amounts of data.

50k deception? False!

This accusation has been amply proven to be a total fabrication by Elonka ( [124]), and I am surprised she again puts it here.

Is quoting sources misrepresenting them?

Elonka's trouble here seems to be with a quote from Jackson ( [125]. Jackson actually says "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 pagan ruler as His instrument". Based on context, she claims that Jackson denies the story of the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols. It's not clear at all actually, and many other historians have been considering the capture as fact (see link above). No need to accuse others of wrongdoing here. Jackson is possibly ambiguous, and that's probably how we should present his quote.

Personal attacks by Elonka

Elonka seems to have an almost maniac taste for personal attacks against those who tend to differ in opinions. Again, Wikipedia:NPOV should be great way to accomodate various opinions, but she insists on having one view (hers) prevail. She mounts a huge number of attacks to try to prevail.

Elonka first tried to have the Franco-Mongol alliance article renamed, but failed ( here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance ( here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed ( here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour ( here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin ( here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages ( here or here for example). I even had to file a claim for harassment ( here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well ( an example).

What the heck? I'm here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction, and I must say I am not at all interested in Wikipedia politics or lobbying day long against specific users. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia! PHG ( talk) 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Resisting abuses by User Elonka

I have been fighting against numerous abuses by User Elonka. I believe she is a highly pernicious editor, who cajoles "friends" and leads extremely agressive and slenderous attacks against what she perceives as "oponents". Her behaviours has been highly disputable in a quantity of instances and has motivated many of my reactions.

• User:Elonka deletes large amounts of referenced material without discussion here inspite of requests not to do so.
• User:Elonka systematically misrepresents sources here here, here here
• User:Elonka does original research and deletes sources here, here here
• User:Elonka breaks promisses made in Mediation: here
• User:Elonka repeatedly violate NPOV (introduction sentence issues): here, here, here
• User:Elonka claims in bad faith that a source is unreliable, but uses it in her own article writing [126].
• User:Elonka keeps making false accusations inspite of being desmonstrated she is wrong (like falsely claiming I added "50k of new content" as I reinstated the original version of the article here
• User:Elonka sollicitates supports off-Wiki for her on-Wiki disputes.
• User:Elonka deletes huge amounts of referenced material (120k/ 300 references) here without consensus and by misrepresenting the opinions of other users here
• User:Elonka moves around my Talk Page edits and cuts my comments from certain threads, falsely claiming "Archiving" as a reason. [127]
• User:Elonka falsely claims "consensus" through minute tallying of a few editors [128], here
• User:Elonka lies in her depositions in her vote for Administratorship, in order to minimize extent of dispute [129]. PHG ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Response to Kafka Liz

Working with other editors

I do work intensely with other editors [130]. I even went to Mediation with Elonka and spent a lot of time to forge an agreement there, only to see Elonka betray the agreement soon after [131].

POV forks? No, just splitting the main article.

At 190k, the main article needed splitting. Elonka repeatedly called for splitting/condensing and threatened to take the matter into her own hand if nothing happened. As soon as I started to split however, she pursued me with "POV-fork" accusations. This is totally dishonest! You're saying "Many of these were created and maintained in direct opposition to polite requests from a number of editors, including myself", this is clear misrepresentation: you and others voiced their opposition after I created the splits, not before: I did not act in opposition to anybody. When the decision what taken to delete the splits, I followed the consensus and reinstated the original before-split content of the main article (+about 2k of additional information, mainly references). Then Elonka and Shell falsely accused me of adding 50k of content although it was already there in the first place. This is just dishonest to the extreme.

Poll twisting?

I only added two opinions, which had been voiced by Matt75 and Justin, with a proper link to the edit where they voiced their opinion, so that at no point were they misrepresented as having "voted". They had clearly expressed their opinion on the subject however barely a week or so previously, so I think their opinion does stand.. As far as I know, tallying other editor's comments is a common practice on Wikipedia. The poll closed in only one week, and I think it is fair to write up the opinions of those who did not quite seize this short (too short) window opportunity. PHG ( talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Response to Durova

The 20 or so complaints you mention on my Commons Talk Page span over a period of 3 years, and have to be compared to the thousands of personal images I have contributed to Commons. This is actually quite a good ratio for a big uploader I think. Most of the time, these are not even complaints, just requests to fill up missing source information etc... I never had a problem during all my time on Commons. Elonka tried to attack me on PD-Art, but in vain. Soon after you claimed that my drawings may possibly not be adequately placed on Commons as they could be considered derivative. It is sad, and I think disputable, but I respect that, and we will act upon it when a community decision is taken. PHG ( talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Response to Ealdgyth

Delaying tactics? Misrepresentation.

Sorry to see that you complain about my "slow response time". You see Ealdgyth, I have another life besides Wikipedia, and its not always easy to respond timeline to all requests. I've answered to quite a lot of your inquiries, and if any remain, I will be glad to address them as possible. I am away from home quite often, so it is sometimes difficult to give you the information you want just when you want it.

Please note that I finally found the time today to fill in most of your requests [132] (that was a very, very, long list!). You will see that a large part of them consisted in undocumented references which had been put in by Elonka. PHG ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Original research?

All the quote from User:PHG/Alliance are perfectly exact and true. It is true that many historians only mention parts of the alliance, and focus on some events and not on others. But ALL speak about one "Franco-Mongol alliance", NEVER about "Franco-Mongol alliances" in the plural. All consider it as a single phenomenon, although they differ on which concrete events to highlight.

Undue weight?

Why so much fuss about Edward I's information on the Mongols? If you feel that the Scottish wars deserve more representation, go ahead and expand it. We are an encyclopedia: the more factual elements we have on a subject, however arcane, the better. If you wish to have an article about " Edward I and the Mongols", be my guest, but don't pursue me for POV-fork. PHG ( talk) 09:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Preface

I have avoided discussing content in the evidence I present here, as it is not the issue the ArbCom is here to review.

PHG refuses to work with other editors

Attempts by myself and other editors to work with PHG regarding our concerns with the Franco-Mongol Alliance have been met first with polite stonewalling and evasive answers:

• My question about the claimed "multiple requests to split the article" [133] and the response [134], such as it was, which does not address my initial question.

• My question about overuse of primary sources and ownership issues [135] generates a response regarding secondary and scholarly sources [136].

Then accusations, first of "being polemical and banding together" [137] and then of edit-warring [138] (see final paragraph, where PHG urges "please Elonka, Shell or Kafka Liz, stop edit-warring") when the only contributions I had made to the main article were these: ( [139], [140], and [141].

And finally silence. Other editors whose valid concerns never received an answer include Aramgar [142]. This is but one example; I can and will add more.

PHG has severe ownership issues

PHG responds to any attempts to alter article content by "remind[ing that] I created this article and most of its content" [143]. He accused Elonka of "hijacking" the article [144] and as an extra measure of retaliation, went so far as to attempt to recall her adminship [145].

PHG created numerous POV forks

In an attempt to evade consensus, PHG created a number of POV forks that the community voted to delete: [146], [147], [148], AfD.

Many of these were created and maintained in direct opposition to polite requests from a number of editors, including myself on January 16, on January 17, on January 18, also on January 18; Srnec [149], Ealdgyth [150], and Aramgar [151].

PHG engaged in disruptive editing

PHG's disruptive editing escalated to the point that he was blocked for edit warring by two separate admins:

• First for 24 hours, by Ioeth [152];
• Then for 31 hours, by Rlevse [153], [154].

PHG attempted to twist poll results

PHG altered the wording of a consensus poll after it had begun [155] and added comments of editors who were no longer participating in the discussion [156] in an attempt to skew the results.

Commons upload issues

Reference to the upload issues on Commons is premature at best. I asked both PHG and Elonka to modify their evidence on that point and thank Elonka for changing hers. PHG continues to insinuate in his formal evidence that my participation is either incompetent or partisan, so some reply is necessary.

The general topic is not a passing interest. I have received credit for sixteen featured pictures on Commons and seventeen featured pictures on en:Wikipedia, most of which are restorations of historic images, and I operate an image restoration workshop in user space that has helped earn featured picture credits for several other Wikipedians. See User:Durova/Landmark images and commons:User:Durova/Encyclopedic image restoration.

PHG edits as PHGCOM on Commons. A Commons administrator blocked him for three days because of the issues I raised, and roughly twenty separate prior complaints that had accrued at his talk page. [157] commons:User talk:PHGCOM.

I waited ten days before nominating PHG's sketches for deletion because I was asking him to transwiki the material to en:Wikipedia, where this would all be uncontroversial fair use material. He has refused to cooperate at all, and instead has entered statements against me in formal evidence here. So it will be several more days before the matter is wrapped up at Commons. Deletion discussions at that project normally last one week. Durova ^Charge! 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Striking through my evidence. PHG has amended his statement so there's no further need to address the goings-on from another Wikimedia project. Durova ^Charge! 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

In light of Newyorkbrad's request for final evidence I reviewed this page and see that, in spite of my attempt at a good faith strikethrough, PHG still asserts the propriety of his Commons uploads. Actually 36 images he uploaded there were deleted because of licensing problems, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PHGCOM. It was no small task to research and write up that mass nomination.

Wikipedia upload issues

During this time, an additional 14 images he had uploaded to Wikipedia were bot-tagged because of inadequate or missing fair use rationale. Most of these remain on Wikipedia. At Image:Theophilos.jpg, he supplied a rationale and removed the tag himself, although the image still violates minimal Wikipedia standards because it has no source information. [158] Same with Image:TheophilosGB.jpg [159] and Image:ZoilosII.jpg [160] and Image:ZoilusI.jpg [161]] and probably others. I am not providing a full list at this time because my schedule prevents it, and I think this is enough to demonstrate the problem.

I would have been glad to advise PHG about how to become compliant with both Wikimedia projects' policies if he had only asked me. All or nearly all of the images that had to be deleted from Commons would have been legitimate uploads at en:Wikipedia as fair use copyrighted material. The upload requirements at Wikipedia probably could have been resolved also, but I didn't even notice that problem until the other day and only began seriously looking into it this morning. If it hadn't been for Newyorkbrad's request I would have brought the latter issue to PHG's attention privately, although to gauge from past experience I doubt he would have been cooperative. Durova ^Charge! 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry if this is wordy and lengthy, I know I tend to be verbose. I've never submitted to ArbCom before, so if I've totally messed up some way, I'd appreciate it if a clerk would let me know, so I can fix it.

Note on March 1, 2008 - I am currently experiencing some very weird issues with my ISP. I can read Wikipedia, just cannot complete an edit. There are a number of other issues going on, but that's the main problem with Wikipedia. Tech support and I have tried different browsers, different computers, different OS's, taking out routers on the home network, secure logins to Wikipedia, everything. Since the ISP just did a major hardware/software upgrade when these issues started, and others are having them too, it is clear it's an ISP issue. The upshot is that I'm reading, but to actually edit takes a drive to the nearest friend with DSL or to a nearby library. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.

For PHG, yes, I did ask that Shell move your comments on my testbed page. THanks to Shell for doing it. Hopefully I'll be more accessable soon. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Update from March 3. ISP says it's fixed. We'll see how long it lasts. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Delaying tactics

In attempting to work with PHG, I've brought concerns to the talk page. Frequently, he won't answer at first, and I'll have to post a reminder. Request for information after six days & Another request. The reminder usually works, often only partially, with further replies promised "later". PHG's reply with "more coming soon" promised Diff where it a concern raised 10 days before finally gets answered. Several of those responses are still waiting to be finished off.

This process, while it slowly works, doesn't give me the feeling that PHG is really interested in collaborative work. Rather, I get the impression that he's just trying to wait me out.

Original research

PHG lists User:PHG/Alliance as his support for, as he puts it in the long version of the article he's repeatedly inserted, "a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. According to various historians, these attempts evolved into a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation," There is one problem, that chart, which culls together a number of different historian's quotations, is itself Original Research.

I went through what books he's pulled those quotations out of, and they all cover different time frames and give differing membership of the alliances they mention. Synthesizing from different authors that discuss differing time frames in order to discuss that there is one overarching alliance from the mid-1200's to the early 1300's pretty clearly fits the concept of original research. The results of my (so-far) research are here, with the ones I've checked under the Checked section heading, the ones I haven't checked under Not checked.

• User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed.

Note that the time frames covered by PHG's quotations are all over the place. Some of the works he's quoting in support say the alliance happened in one time frame, others say different time frames. The exact compostion of the alliance also varies. Sometimes it's the Armenians and the Franks of Antioch, sometimes it's the English, sometimes it's the military orders. Once more it's synthesized who is involved, as well as the time frame involved.

Note that, some of these "sources" are a little dubious. One is a blurb from the back cover of a book (Demurger back cover), two are from an unsourced web site that I believe is a course syllabus and/or website for a college level course on the crusades (Knox), and three (the others from Demurger) I could not find anything at all close to them in the English translations of the book. Those are the ones I could check. Elonka has shown ( User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Historian quickref) that the Oldenburg quote is from the back of the book in the chronology section, in a book that is about a different time frame. Another is the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Undue weight

Evidence

Lastly, what brought me to this whole dispute to begin with.

• On August 27, 2007 PHG inserted this information in the article on King Edward I of England: Aug 26 edits.
• On November 19, 2007, he tweaked it some and added a link to the main Franco-Mongol alliance article: Nov 19 edits.
• Lastly, on January 13, 2008 he added more: Jan 13 edit

Conclusion

If you look at Edward's article, as it stands now, with PHG's additions, the section Edward of England#Relations with the Mongols is as long as the section on the Scottish wars, which is arguably one of the things that Edward is remembered for. The section on the Mongols, which is only part of the wider picture of Edward's actions on the crusades, is as long as the previous section on the crusades.

And THEN there is another long section on Edward I of England#Later contacts with the Mongols, which details four diplomatic exchanges, including two quotations from letters. This section is as long as the Scottish wars or the governmental actions of Edward during his reign, which covered 1274 to 1307.

Both of these sections give undue weight to Edward's relations with the Mongols in the article. As I pointed out to PHG at one point, the current scholarly biography of Edward, by John Gillingham, gives maybe five pages total (out of over 550) to the relations with the Mongols. Mongols are only mentioned on seven pages, as given in the index. Ghazan is only mentioned on two pages, as is Abaga. The whole insertion of the information is totally out of scale to the importance that the Mongol diplomatic contacts had to Edward's life. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Ealdgyth | Talk 03:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

PHG misrepresents sources

It is difficult to know how to present this material, bordering as it does on the issue of content.

I note here (see third paragraph) that historian Reuven Amitai-Preiss is emphatic about there having been no alliance. PHG nevertheless includes him in his first footnote under the heading "Authors presenting the alliance as an actual occurence [sic]." The quote used there (see third bulleted point) is a misrepresentation of the whole work, where it is clear that Amitai-Preiss uses the word "alliance" as a simple synonym for a complex relationship of vassalage. Other examples similarly do not bear close scrutiny: Peter Jackson is cited in this category as well, on the grounds that his book Mongols and the West contains a chapter entitled "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East." Such a chapter heading is hardly proof of a full-scale alliance and is yet another example of PHG's refusal to see the forest for the trees: he focuses here as elsewhere on the use of the word "ally" without taking the author's meaning into account. Jackson, like Amitai-Preiss, is clear that no alliance existed, explicitly characterizing attempts at negotiation as "stillborn" and a "failure." These are just two examples; examination of the other historians on this list would reveal similar distortions.

PHG cherrypicks sources to support his POV

PHG relies instead on outdated historians and primary sources to bolster his views. I am not the only editor to express this concern: Adam Bishop, Arnoutf, Elonka, EdJohnston, Blueboar, Haukurth, showing how PHG assigns undue weight to a minority view, John Kenney, indicating over-reliance on a single source, Srnec, and Ealdgyth.

PHG violates WP:OWN

PHG's ownership issues pertain not only to this article but to all those related to this subject. A recent exchange I had will PHG at Aïbeg and Serkis (a POV fork of PHG's Franco-Mongol enthusiasms) illustrates this point: I removed two suspect lines sourced to two outdated historians (Grousset, 1930s, Runciman, 1950s) and replaced them with a more accurate sentence and modern citation [162]. He immediately reverted my edits, with the edit summary "Do not delete referenced material!!!" [163] and left a hostile note on my talkpage [164]. The litany of complaints that his "195k, 400 refs" article has been condensed, repeated on this page, the workshop page, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, and at least a dozen user talkpages is strong evidence of an ownership problem.

For the record

Kafka Liz and I have an off-wiki relationship. For this reason we have abstained from voting in the same AfDs and polls. Aramgar ( talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

PHG canvasses in an attempt to skew discussions

• Canvassing to skew consensus at Franco-Mongol alliance: [165], [166], [167], [168]
• Canvassing about this proceeding, including approaching editors he has no connection with only because they were part of an older ArbCom case Elonka was involved in. Notice that he considers this case noting but harassment by "Elonka and her supporters"; he clearly does not acknowledge any chance that his behavior brought us here: [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177]

PHG edit wars and displays ownership problems

• Edit warring on Franco-Mongol alliance: [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185],

• Edit warring on Aïbeg and Serkis: [186], [187], [188], [189], [190]

Through all that has gone on, PHG still insists repeatedly that only his version should be used. He refuses to work on the Franco-Mongol alliance his version is restored and others work step by step from there; he actively hijacks any ongoing discussion to bring up this point. His statements make it clear that he does not understand the problem with this behavior and has no intention of stopping.

• Still recently insists that only his version should be used: [191], [192]
• Accuses others of "banding together" against him, calls changes against his version "book burning": [193]
• Not using his version is "abusive" and unfair: [194]

PHG uses sources improperly

PHG shows an inability to properly use sources on many topics. He twists sources and quotes to fit his preconceived notions of the "truth" of an article. He is unwilling to engage in productive discussions on this topic and in response to questions about the propriety of his sourcing, simply does more of the same or moves on to insert the same misinformation in other articles to bolster his case. Regardless of whether or not this is intentional or sincere misunderstanding, the net result is of serious concern to the project. Oh and folks, all the evidence in this section is only from this month - I shudder to think of the scope of cleanup we're facing.

• For some concrete examples which include full references so they can be verified, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table.

Franco-Mongol Alliance

PHG frequently uses bits and pieces of sources to provide a synthesis which supports his view. For example, he uses cherry-picked quotes (sometimes less than a sentence) to claim the Mongols captured Jerusalem around 1300. [195] It is clear that the sources do not support his claim (at best they mention raids and "visiting" the city) [196]. Note that he even admits that one of his sources, Schein, specifically contradicts his assertion, but he explains that he thinks she must have meant something different.

Many editors have tried to explain the problem of cherry-picking and synthesis to him, for example here where he's tried to support another supposed Mongol alliance with a synthesis and a single short reference (with no footnote) in a source. [197], [198]

PHG regards the absence of a specific declaration that the Mongols didn't take Jerusalem as proof that it occurred [199] - this is a very dangerous way of looking at things and pervades his writing across Wikipedia. He has used this argument multiple times as a "proof" of his views.

PHG searches out sources to fit his preconceived notions, for example, he relies on Laurent Dailliez's latest work on the Templars that has been repeatedly criticized for being historical fantasy; claims made in that book are completely discounted by the community. PHG uses a marketing quote from the book cover as evidence that the work is sound. [200] Many editors expressed concerns over the source, however, PHG is unwilling to relinquish this support of his views. [201], [202], [203]

Thorough research of the sources PHG uses finds that in almost every case, he has either misquoted, or in some cases completely fabricated quotes. Compare the claims made at User:PHG/Alliance with the actual quotes and sources at User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed. An excellent example is the third Jean Richard quote where PHG seizes upon the use of the word alliance, failing to provide the very next sentence which clearly states there was never an alliance.

Aïbeg and Serkis

This is a good example of one of the ways this insidious problem is spreading across multiple articles. Here we have a problem again where he pulls a synthesis from primary sources (a letter in latin) and select quotes from an older secondary source (René Grousset). [204] Note that the quotes he uses to support the statements are cut off in places; this is because in total and in context, the quotes he's using from this source again do not actually support what he writes. Despite the discussion on talk where he was clearly shown more recent sources that adamantly contradict his writing, he is unwilling to let go of this information as it is one of the claims he is using to support his views in Franco-Mongol Alliance. PHG even clearly admits that he's using a conglomeration of different pieces and parts of many "letters and responses" [205] to support his unusual theories.

Other articles

The same misinformation also had to be removed from Ascelin of Lombardia [206] and Samagar [207]. It was also present in Viam agnoscere veritatis where again, PHG synthesized several sources to prove his point; it was later found he was using references to several different letters and claiming them as one. [208]

Some articles have yet to be fully reviewed, for example Europeans_in_Medieval_China which is little more than a coatrack for the Mongol POV PHG prefers — note that he sources the entirety of the article to a single source, but, for example, his information in the last paragraph on John of Montecorvino does not appear in that source and is actually a synthesis of details from several other sources.

PHG's responses

• To this day, PHG is insistent that his writing was properly referenced and is still maintaining his list of cherry-picked quotes and his article version in userspace: [209]
• Appears to honestly believe that he is reporting sources faithfully: [210], [211], [212]
• Appears to honestly misunderstand NPOV as a reason his cherry picking and source manipulation is allowed: [213]

PHG harasses Elonka

PHG has fixated on Elonka as the cause of this problem, apparently unable to understand that there are many editors who disagree with his methods and his work. There are numerous examples on the Workshop of personal attacks against Elonka and they are continuing in many other places.

• Accusations of harassment, a vendetta and "making him look bad": [214], [215], [216]
• Accusations of personal attacks and bullying: [217], [218]
• Use of his userspace as an attack: [219] (deleted), [220]
• Repeated calls for her to resign adminship over this dispute: [221]
• Repeatedly brings up privileged Mediation discussion despite being warned not to (the Mediation in question was deleted for this reason): [222]

Sorry if this is out of process, but I don't really have any further evidence, other than what everyone else has already posted.

I first got involved in this mess in August, when I noticed PHG was using Rene Grousset as a source for crusade articles ( [223]). I recognized PHG although I don't think I had ever worked with him before, so I wasn't too worried about it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:PHG&diff=prev&oldid=154071915). I noticed a couple of days later that he was working on a Franco-Mongol alliance article, which I thought was pretty interesting. It was a good topic for an encyclopedia, and I skimmed over it in the early stages. I assumed PHG was trustworthy so I left him alone.

Elonka eventually contacted me with her concerns over PHG's actions, so in some sense I was canvassed to join Elonka's side, and most of our discussions took place over MSN, not on Wikipedia. I believe I have since made it clear that I was never trying to gang up on PHG, and I did not take Elonka's "side"; in fact she seems to think I have betrayed the cause by not endorsing her short version of the article. I guess my concerns were simply parallel to hers for the most part.

I also want to mention that I realize Wikipedia makes no distinction between experts and anyone else, and throughout this whole discussion I have been skirting that line. There are plenty of users with historical training who have been opposing PHG, but as far as I am aware (and I may be wrong), I am the only one who studies the crusades specifically. The arrival of the Mongols is beyond the focus of my studies, but I am familiar with the period, the kinds of contemporary literature that exist, and some of the current scholarship. So, I often suggested to PHG that, hey, I know what I'm talking about, and so do many others, why not let us help you fix your article? There is a thread on PHG's talk page about this, culminating in PHG's discovery that I am "just a student", after which he has pretty much ignored anything I had to say ( the end of that thread).

He is making a number of embarrassingly amateur mistakes though; I had to point out that William of Tyre and the Templar of Tyre are not the same thing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:PHG&diff=prev&oldid=158066914), and there are still a number of footnotes on the Alliance article that suggest William of Tyre wrote in French in the 13th century. A minor point? Perhaps, but when he doesn't understand the sources, how can he understand what he is even writing an article about? The second discussion I was heavily involved in was the presence of Bohemond VI of Antioch at the sack of Baghdad. That is patently absurd and various editors (John Kenney was also involved) pointed out why it could not be true. Again, a minor point, but the same argument could be held about every other sentence in the article. But PHG insisted that every opinion must be represented, no matter how ridiculous, even when this particular opinion must have been a simple mistake.

This leads me to the argument about Wikipedia policy. PHG has a number of stock phrases which he repeats over and over again, apparently believing they will magically be true the more he says them. All opinions must be represented - this is false. If Wikipedia policy says so then Wikipedia policy is also false; but I suspect PHG simply lacks understanding of policy just as he lacks understanding of historiography. All his statements are backed up by academic references - not true, as others have ably pointed out. This verges on plagiarism and falsification of sources, but I don't think it's intentional, he's probably just lazy, or again, doesn't understand how to write about history. The number of footnotes (near 400) has some magical effect on his credibility - not true, in fact the more sources he uses, the more obvious it is he doesn't know how to use them (it would be laughable if I wrote an essay of this size with 400 footnotes).

I regret how this discussion has progressed. I think it's fairly likely that PHG simply feels attacked, and has gone on the defensive rather than allow his rabid opponents to tear apart his work. I'm sure I would feel the same way. Elonka's suggestion to ban him entirely is extreme, but what else can we do? He works on obscure topics so no one can question him, and now that he came across one that lots of people know about and have easy access to the sources, he is finally being called on it. At the very least I guess he should be prevented from creating articles on historical subjects. But the rest of us, simply by being jerks, have made this far worse, and PHG is not the only one to blame.

I hope this is satisfactory as a statement of evidence; I will search for more diffs as time allows. Adam Bishop ( talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

PHG engages in personal attacks

This particular diff, from the Workshop page, is egregrious enough that I want it to be part of the evidence: [224]

It remains on the page despite multiple persons calling for PHG to remove it.

I interpret this as very strong slander by PHG against those who he percieves as "opponents", and totally misses the point of why his behaviour has been brought to RfA in the first place. FWIW, I haven't seen anyone in this process comment on the cultural level of the Mongols. What's debated is what we can say on Wikipedia about what historians say happened. -- Alvestrand ( talk) 07:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

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.