Revision as of 08:33, 17 April 2010

• 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: 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[REDACTED] 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)

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

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)