After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reliability of content

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

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Note that "accuracy and reliability" specifically encompasses their balance ( WP:NPOV) too. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sourcing

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

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Basic and essential... but not by itself enough to ensure neutrality. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Accuracy of sourcing

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

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) And it is this that is very often forgotten/misused by editors, both in good-faith belief it is the "right" view, or knowing it is not really the author's intent but doing so anyway. It's utterly crucial to not use citing, to misrepresent. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

5) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Problematic editing

6) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) yes. We are encyclopedia writers; sometimes we just have to say "dealing with this kind of issue isn't our job" to various editors. Often sadly. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing by PHG ( talk · contribs) on articles relating to medieval and ancient history, including but not limited to Franco-Mongol Alliance and related articles.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) The present issues focus more on the Mongol related articles, but not exclusively. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Misrepresentation of sources

2) In numerous edits to a series of articles concerning medieval and ancient history, including but not limited to articles relating to the alleged Franco-Mongol Alliance, PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support. Typically, PHG has isolated on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole. Some examples of this have been presented by the parties here. Arbitrators' independent review of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion. Although we continue to assume good faith with regard to the intent of PHG's editing, its overall effect is problematic.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. With emphasis on assuming good faith. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Indeed. As a Committee, we carefully re-checked this for ourselves as well since the sources are specialist ones. Our conclusion was that the concerns of others were broadly supported. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reactions to questioning

3) Concerns have been raised about PHG's editing over a significant period of time and on a variety of articles relating to medieval and ancient history. In response, he has often failed to acknowledge any legitimacy to the concerns raised about his edits or to work collaboratively with other editors in an effort to address them. At times, PHG has reacted to the concerns raised by making uncivil comments or personal attacks ( examples) or by edit-warring ( examples).

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Additionally, Arbitration is often where behavior is most visibly evidenced. PHG was given (exceptionally) a " heads up" and advice to desist, to which his reply was to focus on others rather than the concerns stated of him. A double-check of interpretation was unhelpfully responded to. His reply focussed on his right to act this way rather than the conduct concerns in the comment. At no time did PHG acknowledge that it might be significant to be asked to not write hostile notes to other users, or that this might make his action problematic. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

PHG restricted

1) PHG ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) He has many good points to make, but it seems others must filter these for balance and representative quality, since he himself has repeatedly had difficulties with this essential skill. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

PHG reminded

2) PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Key point when combined with Remedy 3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) It's important, and would be needed. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

PHG encouraged

3) PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. For this case ruling to benefit all involved parties and the Community, PHG needs to be willing to embrace the sentiment of Remedy 2 and this remedy. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) PHG has made many valuable contributions, and done a huge amount of work. Sadly he has problems with the final stage (adding his research into the final article in a way that others agree) . His difficulty is in accepting that concerns described by others might mean something, or apply to him. This is the problem. It has got in his way. We hoped he would learn from others, not just disagree. But none of this in any way changes that his content contributions and research work are very substantial. It is purely the way they are added into the article and how that needs to be balanced (as well as non-content issues such as interaction with other editors) that he has persistent problems with. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

PHG reminded: collaborative consensus

4) PHG is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates. Consensus can change, but this generally requires either the changing of circumstances, the introduction of new information, the passing of a period of time to recheck consensus, or the entrance of new voices or opinions into the discussion.

Support:

1. Proposed. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. I support this wording and approach. An editors' willingness to use this approach, with the exception of enforcing a few serious policy violations such copyright violation, legal threats, and BLP issues, usually is the best predictor of a satisfying volunteer experience that leads to high quality contributions. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Yes. Editors need to accept the situation if they are outside consensus, and to park their disagreement until something new turns up, rather than repeatedly going over the same ground. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Breaks the neat symmetry and parallelism of the original remedy structure, but still correct. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. James F. (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Other editors count too. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement

1) Should the user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Sadly so. I hope this won't be needed... reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• The majority being 7, at this time all proposals pass except remedy 4, collaboration reminder. Thatcher 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  Everything now passes, including R4. James F. (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Close. Everything passes. James F. (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Close. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Kirill 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Close effective 24 hours from this vote. Allowing a little extra time because I understand that another arbitrator or two want to look at the case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
6. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply