Active:
Away/inactive:
Recused
It looks like all the useful evidence and proposals have been out for a while and discussed in as much depth as necessary. At this point the workshop page is getting cluttered and people are running short on patience.
With respect to the Committee for the very difficult situation it faces on another case, the issues here are relatively straightforward. The overall caliber of editor here is among the highest I've ever seen at arbitration, and they've put superb work into this case.
Will a proposed decision be coming soon? Durova Charge! 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the arbs are very busy, and that this is a complex case, but I too would like to see things move along. As it is, PHG's behavior is steadily escalating, such as deleting disambig notes, [1] [2] [3] tagging a disambig page as disputed, [4] and accusing other editors of lying. [5] Today, he generated personal attacks against Aramgar ( talk · contribs), making references to McCarthyism and Guantanamo, and implying that all of Aramgar's edits have been destructive. [6] This is not only false, but is further disruptive because PHG's behavior is being extremely antagonistic towards one of our more valuable editors, a rather shy scholar who can actually read medieval Latin. Aramgar has even indicated that he is actually holding back from creating some content, simply because he doesn't want to get further involved in this mess. [7]
It's one thing for PHG to attack me, I've got a thick enough skin to handle it, but Aramgar most definitely does not deserve PHG's abuse. :/ -- El on ka 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a difficult and regrettable case, because I believe that PHG is editing in good faith and believes he is making strong positive contributions to Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content issues and would not impose sanctions against any user merely because a good-faith disagreement existed concerning what a given source or group of sources should be read to say or because of any other disagreement concerning an article or group of articles. In this case, we did not take anyone's word for it that there were issues with PHG's editing. Arbitrators spent substantial time reviewing the evidence and (per the question to parties that was placed on the workshop a couple of weeks ago and the responses) in checking several of the disputed quotations against the original books and articles. Unfortunately, we found that the concerns as summarized in the decision had merit and that the remedies contained in the proposed decision were the best step forward to ensure the reliability of the encyclopedia. This is not, by any means, a step that I or any of the other arbitrators took either lightly or happily. Finally, I will add that at least speaking for myself, the abstruse dispute over "Viam agnoscere veritatis" played no role one way or the other in resolving the case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, thanks for your work on the current decision. I realize that the other arbs haven't weighed in yet, but I did have one question regarding enforcement. Currently PHG is maintaining a couple POV versions of articles in his own userspace:
Does anyone have a recommendation on how those should be handled? -- El on ka 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
PHG seems to be using his userspace to archive a host of older versions of articles. In addition to the two pages Elonka mentioned there are also:
(followup) We have attempted prods, but PHG is disagreeing with some of them so we are moving to MfD. If anyone would like to participate, the link is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. -- El on ka 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am so glad to see some sanity coming out of the craziness that has been this case, but I wonder if a few tweaks might be necessary for the restriction statement. I think we're seeing the problem start to spill over to more general (but still related) articles such as Christianity in Asia, Christianity in China, Islamic science and the like. There's also the concern that since this seems to be a systematic problem of PHG's that the problem is going to reoccur elsewhere or be found in older contributions (we're only back 6 months now). Perhaps the wording "interpreted broadly" like we see in a lot of similar restrictions and a caveat that additional areas can be added by uninvolved administrators if PHG is found to be continuing the behavior elsewhere? Thanks for considering. Shell babelfish 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the Committee have any guidance with regard to image uploads? In fairness, PHG is a talented amateur photographer whose interests are highly encyclopedic. If he were responsive to feedback about the minority of his uploads that have sourcing/licensing issues then I'd be delighted with his work in that area, but his refusal to seek or accept feedback means that the instances which do cause problems become a time sink. Per my evidence from the other day, this is an issue on Wikipedia as well as Commons. If more evidence is requested regarding en:Wikipedia uploads, please advise. I will be attending a funeral tomorrow but will work out time for more research if that's what's needed here. Durova Charge! 06:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Active:
Away/inactive:
Recused
It looks like all the useful evidence and proposals have been out for a while and discussed in as much depth as necessary. At this point the workshop page is getting cluttered and people are running short on patience.
With respect to the Committee for the very difficult situation it faces on another case, the issues here are relatively straightforward. The overall caliber of editor here is among the highest I've ever seen at arbitration, and they've put superb work into this case.
Will a proposed decision be coming soon? Durova Charge! 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the arbs are very busy, and that this is a complex case, but I too would like to see things move along. As it is, PHG's behavior is steadily escalating, such as deleting disambig notes, [1] [2] [3] tagging a disambig page as disputed, [4] and accusing other editors of lying. [5] Today, he generated personal attacks against Aramgar ( talk · contribs), making references to McCarthyism and Guantanamo, and implying that all of Aramgar's edits have been destructive. [6] This is not only false, but is further disruptive because PHG's behavior is being extremely antagonistic towards one of our more valuable editors, a rather shy scholar who can actually read medieval Latin. Aramgar has even indicated that he is actually holding back from creating some content, simply because he doesn't want to get further involved in this mess. [7]
It's one thing for PHG to attack me, I've got a thick enough skin to handle it, but Aramgar most definitely does not deserve PHG's abuse. :/ -- El on ka 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a difficult and regrettable case, because I believe that PHG is editing in good faith and believes he is making strong positive contributions to Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content issues and would not impose sanctions against any user merely because a good-faith disagreement existed concerning what a given source or group of sources should be read to say or because of any other disagreement concerning an article or group of articles. In this case, we did not take anyone's word for it that there were issues with PHG's editing. Arbitrators spent substantial time reviewing the evidence and (per the question to parties that was placed on the workshop a couple of weeks ago and the responses) in checking several of the disputed quotations against the original books and articles. Unfortunately, we found that the concerns as summarized in the decision had merit and that the remedies contained in the proposed decision were the best step forward to ensure the reliability of the encyclopedia. This is not, by any means, a step that I or any of the other arbitrators took either lightly or happily. Finally, I will add that at least speaking for myself, the abstruse dispute over "Viam agnoscere veritatis" played no role one way or the other in resolving the case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, thanks for your work on the current decision. I realize that the other arbs haven't weighed in yet, but I did have one question regarding enforcement. Currently PHG is maintaining a couple POV versions of articles in his own userspace:
Does anyone have a recommendation on how those should be handled? -- El on ka 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
PHG seems to be using his userspace to archive a host of older versions of articles. In addition to the two pages Elonka mentioned there are also:
(followup) We have attempted prods, but PHG is disagreeing with some of them so we are moving to MfD. If anyone would like to participate, the link is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. -- El on ka 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am so glad to see some sanity coming out of the craziness that has been this case, but I wonder if a few tweaks might be necessary for the restriction statement. I think we're seeing the problem start to spill over to more general (but still related) articles such as Christianity in Asia, Christianity in China, Islamic science and the like. There's also the concern that since this seems to be a systematic problem of PHG's that the problem is going to reoccur elsewhere or be found in older contributions (we're only back 6 months now). Perhaps the wording "interpreted broadly" like we see in a lot of similar restrictions and a caveat that additional areas can be added by uninvolved administrators if PHG is found to be continuing the behavior elsewhere? Thanks for considering. Shell babelfish 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the Committee have any guidance with regard to image uploads? In fairness, PHG is a talented amateur photographer whose interests are highly encyclopedic. If he were responsive to feedback about the minority of his uploads that have sourcing/licensing issues then I'd be delighted with his work in that area, but his refusal to seek or accept feedback means that the instances which do cause problems become a time sink. Per my evidence from the other day, this is an issue on Wikipedia as well as Commons. If more evidence is requested regarding en:Wikipedia uploads, please advise. I will be attending a funeral tomorrow but will work out time for more research if that's what's needed here. Durova Charge! 06:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)