This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.118.88.80 (talk) at 15:17, 22 April 2010 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Derek Smart

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 01:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Derek Smart arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedies

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Bill Huffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Bill Huffman
• Atama

Amendment 1

Bill Huffman (the account by that name and the person behind it) is prohibited from editing the Derek Smart article, including the talk page.

Statement by Cla68

Finding #5 from the Derek Smart case found that Bill Huffman was operating an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart and editing the talk page of the Smart article under a Misplaced Pages account of the same name. On the Derek Smart talk page, the Huffman account has made, as recently as a few days ago, suggestions on article content which has been discussed by other editors.

It came to light a few weeks ago that this same editor was operating an undisclosed alternate account, TallMagic. Both accounts have edited the same article. TallMagic disputed the attempts at finding fault with his use of two accounts. Administrator Atama asked TallMagic to stop using the Huffman account, which TallMagic refused to do, instead, announcing that he was "retiring" both accounts. The Bill Huffman account, however, began editing again on 18 April, specifically targetting the Derek Smart article. He has been evasive when asked to explain why he is doing so.

I'm not sure why the Committee did not enact a remedy in the case with regards to this editor. It seems to me that someone who is operating an harrassment campaign off-wiki against someone should not be allowed to edit that person's Misplaced Pages BLP, including the talk page. I suspect that the person wants Derek Smart to know that he is messing with his Misplaced Pages bio, as he has the same name prominently displayed on the front page of the off-wiki attack site . The fact that the editor "retired" the TallMagic account yet kept the original account which is now used solely for the Derek Smart article shows that this person is really only here for one purpose, to use Misplaced Pages as part of his personal campaign against Derek Smart. I request that ArbCom consider adding a remedy to this case to resolve this issue.

Statement by other editor

I've started editing Misplaced Pages some time ago, simply because I knew of Derek Smart, was surprised there was an article on him, and got interested in watching the article grow. I am not terribly Misplaced Pages savvy, and let it be known though I have been trying to acquaint myself with policy properly enough to weigh in on things, my opinion should be taken as that of an inexperienced editor.

The original arbitration did mention Bill Huffman, and as I recall found no reason to remedy. It is perfectly within reason and within WP:COI for someone who is directly involved with a subject to post strictly on the talk page, so long as they are careful as per 'close relationships'. To this end, Bill Huffman has never edited the article, has always seemed to give helpful edits, and remained calm in an extremely checkered history of vicious personal attacks by various editors. He is not a troubling force on that page, and anyone examining the history of the page is likely to see that for themselves.

I find myself bothered that this remedy is even being proposed, and I would like to note that conflict of interest was spoken to here, and seemed to find nothing in this regard. Editing a talk page with content suggestions does not seem to be something to discourage. Certainly not something that should be punished. These suggestions, it should be said, were not done disruptively to any measure that I can detect. His suggestions on the talk page were often for additions that, as someone who has had an extensive history with the BLP article's subject, he considered to be useful. Not all of his suggestions were taken, but a rejected idea never even seemed to cause him the slightest distress.

I feel bad in that I've been speaking with Atama, with regards to Bill Huffman, and now it seems even after he finished conversing with me (he banned what I thought to be a legitimate sock of Huffman and I made a case on the sock's talk page and on Atama's page, later inviting JzG to review if he ever had time), and now Atama's been called in anyway. My sympathies for your being drawn back in, Atama.

In summation, I don't see a case to be made, here. But though I am an inexperienced editor, I am also likely one of the few around that knows of the article subject, and some of the long-standing conversations throughout the history of the article. OH, no, there is one thing more. Is it possible to add another amendment that the article in question be reviewed by uninvolved editors? It's hard to get interest, but there has been a NPOV tag up for quite some time, there are also some simple errors, and if this article is truly non-neutral (this figure, from what I have seen, is often negatively regarded, however I'm loathe to judge in on WP:Weight) then some help to bring it up to speed would be ideal. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - In reading the 'evasive' link Cla68 posted, the final post in there seems to be from TallMagic as of this posting and it seems to be a clear explanation and not an evasion. A study of the history of the article will cause one to note that Derek Smart does indeed know that Bill Huffman edits the article, without any speculation required. After the ArbCom remedy, Derek Smart entered the page with his personal name, and in part of a long comment, was banned owing to legal threats. Prior to that, his surrogates, IP editors with close personal knowledge and singular interest in the article, were causing disruption on the page by removing all material critical of the article's subject. Through all of this, even while conflict of interest concerns were raised, Bill Huffman's editing patterns were often praised.. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements. On an initial review, I find this situation to be troubling. I urge Bill Huffman to refrain from posting to Talk:Derek Smart until this matter is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have to admit that people claiming that Cla68 was outing a user by linking him to a real name alternate account that the person was using. to be.. slightly puzzling, to say the least. I second Brad's suggestion above that the posting on the Derek Smart page(s) should cease until this can be further reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: EEML

Initiated by — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk at 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3: Piotrus is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Piotrus

Amendment 1

• Remedy 3: Piotrus is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year.
• See below for proposed modification and alternative proposal.

Statement by Malik Shabazz

User:Piotrus used to perform a number of uncontroversial housekeeping tasks for WikiProject Poland that did not involve content editing of articles related to Poland. For example, he monitored newly-created Poland-related articles and, where appropriate, added applicable clean-up tags (including nominating them for deletion when necessary), nominated them for DYK, and invited their creators to the WikiProject. (A fairly complete list of his former responsibilities can be found here.)

When Piotrus was blocked, User:Jniech volunteered to take on some of those responsibilities. Jniech made a good faith effort, but for a variety of reasons Jniech has not been able to keep up with the necessary tasks. Both Jniech and I have asked for assistance, but none of the other WikiProject Poland members have volunteered to step in. Consequently, these tasks have not been performed for several months.

I hereby request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may once again perform these housekeeping tasks and post messages to WikiProject Poland to inform other editors about such tasks. Piotrus would be strictly prohibited from editing the content of any Poland-related articles except for the types of uncontroversial maintenance edits mentioned above.

In the alternative, I request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may inform me of any new Poland-related articles that, in his opinion, should be tagged for clean-up (including deletion), or of any other WikiProject-related tasks.

Statement by Nihil novi

To the best of my knowledge, all that Malik Shabazz says above is true. Piotrus has played an essential role in the production and maintenance of articles pertaining to Poland and Poland's broader geographic and historic milieu. Had Piotrus never written an article himself — and he has doubtless been one of the most productive editors on these and other subjects — his role in the cleaning-up of existing articles would still have made him one of the most productive editors on the English Misplaced Pages. Malik Shabazz's proposal, if adopted, will strengthen the project in a very substantial and noticeable way. Nihil novi (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinek

As stated above, User:Piotrus was of great help for WikiProject Poland. It would be extremely beneficial for the project if he would be able to perform easy non-controversial tasks for the project. His cleanup abilities are needed. - Darwinek (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Skäpperöd

• Projects are one way to coordinate maintenance, but most editors maintain wikipedia articles without being enlisted by any project. They do so either regularily, by chance or by bot.
• WPPoland has 30+ active and 30+ semi-active members , including experienced users like Malik Shabazz, Nihil novi and Darwinek who commented above, but also other people with a high edit count.

If an editor feels some article needs an additional tag, banner, cat etc pp, WP:SOFIXIT applies.

Malik Shabazz based this request on his co-project member Jniech's mid-February request. Angus McLellan promptly offered advise on how to properly deal with the issues Jniech was uncertain about, while MS proposed to go to this board, and prepared this request in his user space afterwards. MS's assumtion that "A fairly complete list of his former responsibilities can be found here" is false. As any editor, Piotrus does not have any responsibilities here, except for playing by the (few) rules. The list MS linked are not Piotrus' responsibilities, but a list of optional, volunteer maintenance tasks that may be performed by anyone. MS's assumption that "these tasks have not been performed for several months" remains unproven, and it is neither shown that there is anything that really needs to be done and is not done. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Visor

As it has been said above, Piotrus took significant role to create and improve hundreds of Poland and European related articles. Many of them became articles with the highest Misplaced Pages standards what can be seen by numerous of DYKs, Featured, A-Class and Good articles. I totally agree with Malik Shabazz and I believe (I know) Piotrus' work on WP:Poland will be beneficial for Misplaced Pages. Visor (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jniech

WikiProject Poland has a number of members but it is the number willing to do the work that is important. A few of us tried to cover for Piotrus. It is our failure that resulted in this request as without Piotrus help the backlog of outstanding tasks is only going to increase.

Further in my mind adding a template or recommending an article for DYK is not really breaking Piotrus ban on editing article on central and eastern European topics.

Members of Misplaced Pages can help with many issues but there is the issue of maintaining consistency. Only someone with years of knowledge on Polish related articles can help with this.

It only hurts Misplaced Pages by not considering this request. Piotrus appears to have broken the rules and some form of punishment was warranted. Stopping Piotrus adding content and discussing articles on central and eastern European issues maybe fair but taking part in “uncontroversial housekeeping tasks” seems unnecessary. In olden days, prisons were for punishment. In these more enlighten days rehabilitation is the goal. Why not consider this? If Piotrus breaks the rules then increase the length of ban but stopping him doing house keeping others can’t be bothered doing seems wrong.

Those who doubt that there is a need only has to monitor the WikiProject Poland page to see increasing numbers of Poland-related articles by quality and importance which are not assessed and that is including those we are failing to tag Jniech (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

Statement by M.K.

Given the long history of off-wiki games, disruptive coordination to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies, tag-teaming, stealth canvassing etc. any attempt to ease any sanctions should begin with a full acknowledgement of guilt by the sanctioned party. And by full acknowledgement I mean not "non-apology apologies" that we did have before, not wikilawering or beating around the bushes, but straightforward admition by the sanctioned party that it understands why it was sanctioned, and admits that its actions such as 'tag team' edit-warring, abuse of dispute resolution processes, proxying for blocked user and encouraging and advising other Misplaced Pages editors to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies were disruptive, harmed Misplaced Pages’s integrity and will never be repeated again. Without such statement any motion to ease these sanctions should not even be considered.

Finally, none of those “tasks” listed above are vital to the project and easily can be carried out by other members of the project. If Piotrus has too much free time, he can work in dozen other WP projects. Saying that, I perfectly understand that we will see countless other typical “amendments”, “calcifications” and “requests“ in the near future. M.K. (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lysy

I can only confirm that Piotrus housekeeping tasks related Poland-related articles are missed now. Besides, Piotrus used to do an outstanding job indirectly motivating other editors to improve the quality of the project articles, and this is missed too. It seems that the proposed amendment can only do good and I can see no harm in it. --Lysy 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Poeticbent

Time flies. The month of April is already getting close to an end. Piotrus is going to return to full time editing in several months, regardless of any amendments to EEML. I ask. Why not allow him to return to his area of expertise one step at a time, and, take on noncontroversial tasks in the process of recovery. The Project Poland has been virtually dormant since the New Years, with only rudimentary maintenance and peripheral activities taking place. Poland–related DYKs have all but vanished from the front page of Misplaced Pages since last year. Naturally, Piotrus is not going to make up for all the loses endured by the Project, but his own prior devotion to this portal would be a good place to gradually start rebuilding. -- Poeticbent talk 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements before commenting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'll repeat the essence of what I had discussed on my own talk page with Piotrus: I am receptive to allowing him to post to some well defined location about articles that currently fall under his topic ban, and see this as an opportunity for him to return gradually to contribution in that area. The suggestion of using the Wikiproject talk page seems sound to me as well.

  That said, I admit I'm very hesitant to allow even seemingly uncontroversial edits to the articles themselves at this time. Too often, "uncontroversial" is anything but and lies in the eyes of the beholder. Accordingly, I wouldn't support that level of relaxation this soon. — Coren  19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Continue to be recused. Shell 06:26, 22 April 2010 UTC)
• Generally agree with Coren here. 98.118.88.80 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance

Initiated by Per Honor et Gloria ✍ at 20:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

• Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• PHG arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Amendment

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

"PHG's topic ban is renewed"

2. ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (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.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (ArbCom-assigned mentor of Per Honor et Gloria)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Elonka
• AngusMclellan (repeat above for all parties)

Amendment 1

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PHG#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended
• Topic ban was further extended for a 3rd year, on claims that the Franco-Mongol alliance would be a "novel theory" . It is requested that ArbCom reviews actual material from historians (about 70 in all, presented hereafter) to see that the existence of the alliance is on the contrary a highly significant academic view. It is requested that Per Honor et Gloria's topic ban be removed so that these historical views can be adequately represented in relevant articles, and so that he stops being pursued unduely everytime he describes them.

Statement by Per Honor et Gloria

In aquiescing to an extension of my topic ban , it would seem that ArbCom members have been led to believe that the "Franco-Mongol alliance" would a "novel theory" not supported by the sources . It has also been claimed that I would be pushing a "pet theory" . Nothing is further from the truth, and I believe it is a highly unfair reason to impose a renewed topic ban on my contributions for such reasons . To clarify this point, I would like to ask everyone to properly review available sources on the subject: I took the pain to catalogue hereafter about 70 academic sources on the subject, with quotes.

Historians describing the existence of an alliance

Literally dozens of historians support the fact that there was an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. Of, course, this alliance didn’t succeed as well as everyone had hoped at the time, but agreements clearly took place, proved by the multiple exchanges and letters, and combined operations occurred as a result, which amply fulfills the defining conditions of an alliance ("an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests"). The outcome of this alliance however was plagued with difficulties: ambitious attempts at collaboration ended with minimal results, and the efforts ultimately ended in defeat against the Mamluks. Please just look for yourselves at what historians actually write (50 of them, with quotes and Google Books links in most cases):

See: HISTORIANS DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF A FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE (50 historians)

Elonka's claims vs historians

The view that "there was no alliance", that "it did not happen" or that there were "only attempts at an alliance" is therefore wrong, or at least very partial and one-sided. I have reviewed in detail the sources User:Elonka’s brought forward to promote that argument, and it turns out that most sources she quotes don’t say what she claims, but are actually much more on the line of "there were great hopes, alliances and collaboration took place to a limited extent, and these ventures had limited results or ended in military failure". Many times Elonka makes very partial quotes, which are contradicted in the same source, as when she claims that Turnbull explains that an alliance was "Possible, but did not happen", whereas in the next sentence Turnbull describes how the resulting "unholy alliance took the field in 1259" . Here is a full list of Elonka’s quotes and analysis, completed by other relevant quotes from the same works found by me, and a synthesis for each:

See: ELONKA'S CLAIMS vs WHAT HISTORIANS ACTUALLY SAY

Request

Based on the above evidence, I think it is obvious that it is wrong to claim that "the consensus between historians is that there was no alliance", and it is ever worse to harass a user because he tries to give a fair presentation of the variety of views on the subject. I am only asking that I stopped being harassed and "topic banned" for putting forward the opinion of a vast number of historians.

In view of the sources, I do not actually think Elonka’s argument should be rejected wholesale, but only that it should be balanced with historians who express a more positive view of the alliance: at the very least there is obviously no academic consensus for Elonka’s exclusive position that there was “no alliance”. An introduction of the type "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards a Franco-Mongol alliance, took place in the second half of the 13th century…" would be legitimate, rather than the one-sided account we have today in the article. This formulation was once accepted by Elonka at mediation , a pledge later renegated by her.

I am thus asking that:
1) ArbCom reasserts the fundamental Misplaced Pages rule that articles should be written in a non-POV manner and that all significant opinions of academics should be represented.
2) ArbCom ends this injustice (going into a 3rd year of topic ban for this!), and lifts the Elonka-motivated current topic ban extension on the subject .
3) That Elonka be warned against misrepresenting the views of academics, and that she simply be required to accept that the plurality of views can be represented in an article.

I am appealing to your sense of fairness and justice. Best regards to all.
Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

ArbCom can't make content decisions and cannot "approve" your material. The ban was based on your behavior in misrepresenting sources, ignoring consensus and generally POV pushing to an extreme degree - it's not about what content you espouse, it's how you go about doing it. Shell 21:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

I have little to add beyond what I already offered in the amendment discussion two weeks ago when PHG's topic ban was extended for another year. Well, I could add that with the relative peace that has been brought about by the topic ban, the Franco-Mongol alliance article is now finally at Good article status, and is currently undergoing a broader MilHist peer review before being nominated for Featured article status. Or in other words, for this latest request by PHG, I concur with everything that Shell just said, and recommend that the arbs simply reject or ignore this latest attempt by PHG. --Elonka 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. Shell 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Reject; this is a content dispute. PHG, your restriction does not prevent you from civilly interacting on the articles' talk pages; you need to convince other editors that your suggestions are neutral and verifiable. — Coren  01:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Reject. SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Reject per Coren. Am disappointed to see PHG bring this here. This is clearly stuff PHG needs to raise on the talk page of the articles concerned, and in a manner that is collaborative, which means don't write huge long screeds that take a long time to read. That wastes people's time. Work with them to find out how far they are willing to read what you write, and don't focus on this topic to the exclusion of all else - it is not the be-all-and-end-all of Misplaced Pages. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• I generally agree with Coren and Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• I also agree with Coren and Carcharoth, and see no reason to amend the decision. Risker (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)