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 16 active Arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

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

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Support:

1. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Vassyana ( talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Deskana (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:24, 1 February 2009 (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. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Vassyana ( talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Deskana (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not an abstain, but a comment. Does anyone object to delinking the word "civil" here? The title of the principle is "reliability". No need to emphasise our civility policy over the other principles mentioned here. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. (This principle is adapted from one in a prior decision that I wrote, so hopefully I have standing to consent to the change.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Vassyana ( talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Deskana (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 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. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Vassyana ( talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Deskana (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Noting here that this is not an easy skill to acquire. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Compliance with sanctions; learning from mistakes

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

Support:

1. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Vassyana ( talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Deskana (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mentorships

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

Support:

1. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Deskana (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. (Per John's comment below, changed wording to "mentor, or group or series of mentors".) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. I see the objection here but I think the finding does make it clear that editors who improve under mentoring can work their way free of any restrictions on their editing. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. With the emphasis on may. Failed mentorships should be re-examined on a case-by-case basis with both sides asked what went wrong, unless a more productive mentorship has been established in the interim. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. per Carcharoth. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Per Carcharoth. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I think it's dangerous to make a principle that can be seen as making it risky to engage in mentorship. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Would be riskier for users to avoid them because it could mean a certain block or ban. :-( Mentorships are used to avoid an ArbCom case or a block, so I think that voluntary mentorships need to be evaluated as well as ones arising from sanctions. Also, an inability to work collaboratively is the main reason for a block or ban. So, realistically, the inability to have a successful mentoring relationship would be one sign that an user can not be a productive editors at Wikipedia. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. This suggests that mentors are always right. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Per Fayssal and Coren. Where someone voluntarily agrees to a mentorship, I agree, but where mentorship is imposed, I would be reluctant to endorse a breakdown in the mentorship as being solely the fault of the person being mentored. Some recognition needs to be made that sometimes the wrong mentor(s) are chosen, or mentors "go bad". Ideally the latter wouldn't happen, and ideally the right mentor would be chosen first time, but that is not always the case. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   These other possibilities are the reason why the words "may be a sign" rather than "are a sign" are used here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for point that out. Indenting this and switching to support with caveats. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment:

1. "series of mentors" implies consecutive mentors rather than the more usual mentorship arrangements where more than one person is mentoring the person concurrently. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Could we shorten it to "mentor(s)" ? John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   He's had more than one mentor, already. His first mentor was replaced due to on site inactivity so I don't see a problem with the wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

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

Support:

1. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Vassyana ( talk) 11:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Deskana (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Made a minor copyedit for clarity. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Prior damage in topics related to Mongol alliances with European nations

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

Support:

1. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Vassyana ( talk) 11:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Deskana (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Although I might have used somewhat different wording (perhaps "PHG introduced a significant amount of inadequately supported or mis-cited material into articles" instead of "the user caused extensive damage"). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. As far as I'm concerned, introducing misleading or incorrect citations is causing extensive damage. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Based on my following and reading the previous case at the time. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Continued likelihood of POV-pushing

3) PHG's behavior on several talk pages suggests that if all editing restrictions were lifted, PHG would resume POV editing on Mongol-related topics, and topics related to Hellenistic India ( [1], [2]).

Support:

1. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Vassyana ( talk) 11:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Deskana (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Although I would not necessarily link to the entirety of the cited evidence sections. Note that I did some minor copyediting; please revert if CHL or any other arbitrator who has voted disagrees. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Reviewed material at links. Agree. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Although I'm as bemused as John about a finding of likely future fact, I agree with the broad sentiment expressed here. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I don't approve the usage of the term 'likelihood'. Whether it is affirmative or negative. WP:NPOV doesn't refer to likelihood(s) and the remedies should be based on absolute facts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   It would be possible to formulate an alternate wording of the principle using different terminology, but the fact is that all arbitration remedies are based to a degree on an express or implicit finding on what would happen or continue to happen in the absence of the remedy. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Yeah, I understand that sentiment, but blocks are meant to be preventative. We can't cite recent article work because PHG has obeyed the topic ban. I thought it would be dishonest to cite evidence from over a year ago as the basis for a finding now. The question is whether previously disruptive behavior would resume if the topic ban was entirely lifted. From the evidence I inferred that it probably would. Cool Hand Luke 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. A finding of fact that foretells the future? John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

PHG is a valued contributor

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

Support:

1. Statements and evidence by PHG (citing list of articles), Dr. Blofeld, YellowMonkey, Mathsci, Sponsianus, Dr.K., Akhilleus, Djwilms, and Abd. I strongly believe that PHG should continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   To Rlevse: like FloNight says, this finding explains why harsher sanctions aren't imposed. PHG's editing under the mentorship is generally good. I think this is an important part of the decision's logical structure; would a different heading make this more palatable? Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. We should issue findings of this sort more often. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. In this instance we are evaluating an user's contribution in order to make decisions about their continued participation despite claims that some of his edits are problematic. Some justification for why he is allowed to continue to participate seems good. (We can change the wording of the header but I like the wording of the proposal.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. I appreciate Rlevse's concerns and think that his point generally has value. However, I believe such a finding is important to the context of this case and our handling thereof, which is exactly when it is appropriate to use such findings. Vassyana ( talk) 11:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Normally I'd agree with Rlevse but it seems like this case warrants an exception. Wizardman 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Although I have taken what Rlevse says into account, I see no reason not to support this. Deskana (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Although I can see Rlevse's point, I think a finding like this can be helpful for framing situation and outcomes. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Based on what I've heard and read I don't have doubts about the good faith of user:PHG. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. In such a case a finding that a previously sanctioned user has been co-operative is highly relevant. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. In this case, yes, per Sam, but not a general principle. Would prefer specific positive findings of fact as opposed to general commendments, and re-reading the finding of fact, I see that there are specific mentions of why PHG is a valued contributor. So happy to support. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I oppose "valued contributor" findings as it is not arbcom's job to provide barnstars. All users who contribute good content have value. Some of them may have issues to work on, which is why arbcom exists, but they all have value. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Regardless of the problems encountered with the interpretation of some of the sources PHG uses, he's at least a research editor and that is a plus that has to be encouraged. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. I have no pervasive objection to findings that a user has made valued contributions, and have supported some of these in the past, but in general I prefer to work such a conclusion into the decision in a more integrated way, as in the remedies in the prior Franco-Mongol alliance decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. I don't feel comfortable with pat-on-the-backs findings in general, and only when it is strictly required to counterbalance a more general measure that could otherwise throw an unintended pall on an editor. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Another wording could be "productive", but having grades of commendation at ArbCom doesn't feel right. Simply saying "has contributed in good-faith" is enough. Should also be noted that being a valued contributor does not mean that opinions can't change in light of future contributions. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Indenting to switch to support, but comments still stand. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

4. I have strong reservations about looking after "valued contributors" who misbehave. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Mentorship renewed

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

• PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.

and

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

Support:

1. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. He was never limited' to only use English sources that were widely available, rather, his mentor had to verify his non-English sources including French (his native language). FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   I see. A lot of people didn't realize that the committee intended to let him directly use French sources with supervision. 1b makes it explicit. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Per FloNight. Support other alternatives in lieu. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. I think that misconstrues what the remedy was. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Deskana (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Not opposed, but not thrilled about the language restriction. Vassyana ( talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 1b or 1c. Wizardman 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. per both preceding. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment:

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

• PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
• PHG may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a French-language source, citation, or translation provided by PHG, the special language mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

and

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

Support:

1. I didn't previously run this by the committee, so I'm proposing it now. I think PHG should be free to use his native language if someone can check his work. This is my first choice. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   NYB: User:Mathsci noted in his evidence section that PHG edits in non-controversial French history, where access to French sources would be useful. Cool Hand Luke 03:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   My point is that for the non-controversial matters, I'm not sure we should require the mentor/sourcing arrangement as we are for the areas where PHG has had problems. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) offsetting for now due to my addition. Cool Hand Luke 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. This continues the existing arrangement. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice, parts of the wording sound redundant. Wizardman 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Support, with equal preference to 1c, although I am not sure whether this arrangement should be required with respect to articles on topics remote from the ones where the major problems have arisen. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Equal preference to 1c. Deskana (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Second choice. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Second choice. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

1. This would be my first choice, however there should be some requirement to report to the special language mentor whenever foreign language sources are used. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   OK, if you have some language in mind, I would support. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Suggestion: User:Vassyana/acphg. Vassyana ( talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

• PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
• PHG may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When PHG uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.

and

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

Support:

1. Suggested by User:Vassyana above, with no further comment so far. Equal preference with 1b. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Equal preference to 1b. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Vassyana ( talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Wizardman 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. As per my comment on 1b. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Equal preference to 1b. Deskana (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. First choice. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
12. first choice. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
13. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended

2) The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history is hereby rescinded. PHG ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Support:

1. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Targeted solutions are desirable. Vassyana ( talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 00:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. In addition to the statements, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case, I have carefully considered the material presented by PHG on the talkpage to this page. I am concerned, however, that PHG depicts the analysis of the evidence by my colleague Cool Hand Luke as a vindication of his editing that is inconsistent with the present decision, without acknowledging that it was Cool Hand Luke who drafted and is proposing the decision. I fear that although his good faith remains presumed (as it was in the committee's prior decision which I drafted), PHG still does not have a good grasp of the nature of the problems affecting his editing or the reasons that various editors have expressed concerns with his edits. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. I'm worried that this might be a little too narrow, however. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. hopefully a mentor may notice issues arising elsewhere. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. I am dreaming of the day user:PHG's contributions become unquestionable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Deskana (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Have reviewed the evidence and agree with this remedy. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
14. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 14:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
15. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

Invitation to editing

3a) PHG's mentor, guided by consensus on the talk page concerned, may waive PHG's editing restriction for any particular article, and may restore the restriction as the mentor sees fit, especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits.

Support:

1. I think this is key. PHG's work is generally not bad, and by this proposal he will be given a chance to edit articles on the periphery of his topic ban, which will build trust with the community—resulting in invitations to edit more articles. I think he can earn the community's trust, and this is meant to be an opportunity for him to do so. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Comment. The idea is that both PHG and his mentor should agree to lifting the restriction and allow a reasonable time for comments, perhaps as Elonka suggests. I would like to allow some flexibility for PHG's mentor to implementing it in a manner likely to benefit PHG's editing; some experimentation may be required. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Yes, I liked this addition. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. possibly a plus in terms of flexibility and pragmatism. I will AGF. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per Cool Hand Luke but as a second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. second choice. Deskana (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This is worded poorly, and opens up the door to wide wikilawyering and invites dispute. Given that we place trust in the mentor in the first place I would be receptive to leaving diminishing (and expanding) the restricted area at the mentor's discretion however. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Poor wording. Prefer other version. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Uncertain per Vassyana. I might be more open to implementing this on a trial basis. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Although I do like this remedy, I'm now less keen on making it a permanent remedy for the reasons you've expressed in your comment to remedy 2 above. User:Pmanderson has also suggested making this remedy a two-way street (that is, providing a mechanism to add pages to the baseline topic ban in remedy 2, as well as remove them). [3] I would support either a trial version and/or a two-way street version, but I would like to give the mentor flexibility so that PHG's ban can be fine-tuned without going to ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Prefer the one below. Wizardman 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 3 (b). -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 14:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment:

1. At this point, I am unsure of this. How exactly should it be implemented? Does PHG or his mentor post the suggestion on the talk page and then follow the results of discussion? Is it based on the mentor's interpretation of PHG's talk page interaction? Vassyana ( talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

1. If flexibility and experimentation is desired, I'm wary of the "guided by consensus on the talk page concerned" phrase. It leaves the door open to a lot of questioning and wikilawyering. Please note, I'm not opposed to a flexible measure in this regard. Vassyana ( talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Support:

1. First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. This gives the mentor adequate flexibility. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Vassyana ( talk) 04:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. Deskana (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Support, no preference. (Ambivalent about the two-way street, but the public logging and clear mentor control is an improvement.) Cool Hand Luke 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Much improved. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Wizardman 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
10. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 14:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

1. Proposed. Noted changes: "Two-way street" allowing adding or removing articles from restriction, for flexibility and in response to concerns noted above. Note need to publicly log the alteration to prevent misunderstandings and AEN messes. Replace mentions of objections and consensus guidance with general encouragement to consider feedback to better represent intent and avoid potential wikilawyer arguments about mentor actions. Vassyana ( talk) 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

PHG encouraged

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

Support:

1. I hope PHG continues to improve. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Overall, I've been pleased with this mentoring arrangement and think it should continue with these modifications. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Vassyana ( talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Deskana (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
13. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 14:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Not with the "even in currently restricted subjects" wording. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Support altered wording above reply

Abstain:

1. Strong support with the exception of the words "even in currently restricted subjects", which I question. I would prefer to encourage PHG to continue editing in subject-matter areas where he has had no or relatively few problems, rather than in the areas where he has displayed a significant loss of perspective and had repeated difficulty in that the inferences he draws from the sources disagree with the reading of the same sources by multiple other editors. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   I would have disagreed with you several days ago, but I currently agree that those words should be struck. Unless one of the other supporters objects, I will remove the words in another 24 hours or so. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   Now removed. Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

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/PHG#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Routine. Cool Hand Luke 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
5. The time limits are standard. As in any case, they do not limit administrators' discretion in dealing with misconduct that would be a violation of policy or proper editing guidelines even apart from the existence of the arbitration decision. In any case, invocation of this provision will hopefully not become necessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
6. In the absence of another option and presence of flexibility of interpretation noted above. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
7. A standard enforcement provision; the time limits are very elastic in practice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Deskana (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Standard. Changes to boilerplate can be done later. No need to thrash it out here. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I'm not at all keen on the time limit. I see no reason to limit blocks to one week or to remove an indefinite block as an option. Vassyana ( talk) 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I am generally opposed to this kind of setting limits. Also, and not specifically for this case, 5 blocks for the same offense is more than enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Not sure per Vassyana. Will revisit. Wizardman 00:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

1. I agree with Vassyana that this is less flexible that might be needed, and I never quite understood the rationale for limiting enforcement thusly. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

Motion to close

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.

Currently passing are

All Principles (1-6)

All Findings of Fact (1-4)

Proposed remedies 1c, 2, 3b, 4

Proposed enforcement 1

Currently not passing are

Proposed remedies 1a (no majority), 1b (in lieu of 1c), 3a (in lieu of 3b)

-- Wizardman 19:46, 1 February 2009 (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.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

1. Motion to close. Wizardman 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
5. 10+ on all. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Close. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Close. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply