Another huge mess! Filed by Jehochman, with a statement by WJBscribe....and evidence by none other than (drumroll!!) Durova!!

The editor PHG is a longterm WP editor since 2004/03/06, with over 23,389 edits to date, all referenced from reputable published material. He has "created more than 200 articles, and 8 articles which I created or unstubbed reached FA status (Boshin War, Imperial Japanese Navy, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism etc...)." He's done some really solid work.

The dispute centers around the article Franco-Mongol Alliance. PHG says that it exists and provides notesand references to prove it. Elonka says that it never existed and all of this is bunk.

Elonka discloses her OWN POV
and here's her collection of sources which support her own POV and "original research". The point being is that NPOV is supposed to represent all significant points of view, not just those that particular people are trying to push.

Following Durova's "evidence" leads to an interesting discussion on PHG's talkpage on commons and then to this page where it is being put forward that the Met cannot claim copyright because of the Bridgeman v. Corel court case Elonka tries to railroad her way of thinking through and gets told that her reasoning is flawed...yet, Durova's "evidence" still stands...

So, is this "railroading" or is this something else? It looks like railroading to me....

There are some threads here about this, here's one
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15343

Yet another chart which presumes to debunk PHG's sources.....

Of course, the chart is quoting the "English editions" of foreign language sources.....

Hmm, there's something odd going on here...

Here Elonka deletes 300 references and writes "copyediting, adding a couple of references" in her edit summary....

Here's the full version, with all of the references...

What in the World is happening here???

Here is the article's "featured article candidate" discussion....

Note the politely distanced discussion between Elonka and PHG. Her sources don't jive with his, and she strongly opposes...the next oppose vote is by ....Durova! And the discussion was closed after these two strong opposes, and one weak oppose by a third party....and after PHG has included references which were given by Elonka herself!

Elonka then posts this on PHG's own talk page!

I know nothing about the period, but it seems possible that PHG is applying some kind of Da Vinci Code style historical revisionism to the subject matter. Having said that, I wouldn't trust Elonka or Durova either when it came to historical accuracy.

I know nothing of this subject either, but the tag-team action here seems to be rather evident, with all of the usual subjects making appearences.

The articles do seem to be referenced, but are the references accurate? And can Arb-com judge their accuracy?

There's something fishy going on, anyway....

That's a hard call, not one of PHG best articles. There never was probably a clear cut paper alliance between both, but rather a sort of common goal alliance. It's one of those abscure moment of history not well researched. I've read the article at least PHG version and it's probably not original research but it does contain some weak parts which could be improved. He's a good faith editor. The major problem with his article is probably because it's too detailed, more than it should.

If he's a good faith editor, then why is Elonka trying to get him banned?? And then in comes Jehochman (Durova's meatpuppet) to support this...

I wonder what Kirill is up to with all of this "standard stuff"....

Is that a serious question?

Of course, not! Purely rhetorical!

I will not assume on Elonka's motives, but it doesn't smell good at all. Only her ridiculous propositions for an editor who has such a prolific and generally good contribution should be enough to ignore her claims. It's a pitty that she was able to gatter so much supports even from OK members in this case.

The only disruption from PHG part is that he doesn't know how to limit himself with the details and also reevaluating his understanding of NPOV (which BTW is surelly not in contradiction with his aim in contributing). With that much details for such a not well covered history, anyone will be accused of original research. More specific you become less sources could be gathered. He is unnecessarly obsessed with the details this is diffirent than deliberate original research and deliberate POVing a differences that the many brain starved admins are unable to make.

This seems to be boiling down to one thing: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia is still on the books.

It seems that some people think that this Franco-Mongol alliance existed, others don't. There are, however, sources which support the information that PHG is trying to add to the so-called encyclopedia....

If these things are sourced, then what does it change that this information is included? And, more interestingly, why does Elonka want this information to be suppressed???

I'll venture a guess: it's simply that she wants to be the site expert on this period, so she's going to try to make this editor commit Wiki-harikari...

Why not just let the guy have his pages, since they are indeed sourced? What does this change? Why is this such an issue?

Well, see this Featured Article Review and this statement by Blnguyen (who has recused from the case). Frank-Mongol is not the first time PHG has done this, and apparently actual checks of his citations in the previous case also found they were misleading. Xidaf may be right that this is original research by accident rather than design, but PHG appears to have problems weighing sources of different reliability, synthesis, and definite problems with stubborness and article ownership (putting the disputed references back into Indo-Greek_Kingdom after the FAR closed, for example). If you're cherry-picking quotes from ancient sources and using them out of context to support a view that modern historians think is bunk, and you are not willing to reference the modern historians, there is a problem there.

I agree with you, the problem is what I already discribed elsewhere in this forum, the footnoting process. There are two sort of people who engage in OR, those who do it unintentionally and those who do it intentionally. PHG has probably passed several hours to gether the sources and he is just too stubborn to let it go. 2/3 of the material from that article should probably be deleted, it's long, there is no way to write that much about some obscure not well recorded moment of history without doing OR. On the other hand Elonka version isen't satisfactorry either, so I don't see how she can claim concensus when most of those who voted didn't like both versions.

To fix the problem they should rely on the concept of Reference rather than Footnoting, every real encyclopedia do this. The footnoting system is overused and abused, with such a system you can say almost anything you want.

About the alliance, there was an alliance, it is recorded, but it never was really official, both had common goals, the problem is the way PHG puts it. Sometimes when you write articles you don't see the problem yourself, it's always easier to see the problem with other editors articles.

Elonka behavior is even more problematic, she discredited one of those who criticized her position claiming that that person was placed on restriction so that persons word should be taken with a grant of salt. I haven't seen that being presented in the evidences, but refusing to address arguments by such a cheap way are the sort of things which kill discussion.

I can make Elonka eat her words there by showing her how arguments weren't addressed by claiming that the person who brought it is banned, when obviously the banned user was right.




PHG has created POV forks
3) PHG has created POV forks including: Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, Mongol alliances in the Middle-East, Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations), Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304) and Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300). These articles were deleted through the Articles for Deletion process.


That's a serious issue, apprently he's being disruptive.

Okay, regardless of any OR issues and whether he's cherry picking sources, read this section on the Workshop page and see if you don't feel uneasy about it.

The whole thing is WBJscribe making proposals and Durova saying "yeah, say it, Brother!!"

Durova has already been seen as trying to be an expert on NOR in other discussions.

Jehochman, who filled the case, pretended to "break up" with Durova....but can we be so sure???

And the whole WJBscribe=Elonka Meatpuppet has been the subject of discussion before....

I personally think that what we're seeing here is a game of mixed doubles.....with PHG's head being the ball...

....now, given that sock-puppetry is the....um.....fashion these days among the WP elite...who are the socks and who are the masters here???

If there's weren't enough RL evidence to prove the contrary, I would be tempted to think that Elonka/Durova and Jehochman/WBJscribe are probably at the most two people...and perhaps only one person playing sockpuppet theatre....In any case, something's rotten in Denmark....

Besides WJBscribe, Elonka's other trusty adminpuppet is Shell Kinney. I haven't had the time to get the diffs together, but the same pattern emerges of one who unfailingly and aggressively agrees with Elonka no matter what the subject, and proxies her Dunin family spam.

I doubt Durova has anything to do with this: she may agree with them or not, or be taken in by their games, but she's not meatpuppeting.

With Elonka, WJB and Shell, it's just a mutual power-acquisition ring.

But you are seeing the strings and the "person behind the curtain", as am I? How do you explain that Jehochman, Durova's protégé, filed the case then?

I think that something really strange is going on here. I wasn't aware of the Shell Kinney connection, but that makes sense, given the comments on the workshop page here.

Something is definitely going on here....

Who is Order in Chaos
who plays straight man to Durova in WJBscribe's workshop section???

Any connection there?

Orderinchaos is an administrator who stacked innumerable Australian-related deletion and other debates throughout 2007 with two CU-confirmed socks, Zivko85 and DanielT5. He was let off the hook and allowed to remain an administrator upon fabricating an absurd story, in which friends huddled about the same computer and took turns editing.

He was caught when he socked against Elonka's second RfA. Evidently, they've worked out some kind of deal since then.


Maybe to prove she can?

Okay, it's quite probable that Elonka is pulling the strings here, given the connections. Is Arb-com going to deal with this, given the other, much more explosive case (the GW business) that they have to deal with? It seems to me that they'll be likely to try to get this one shelved ASAP....so, what is the easiest way to do that? Will they say that PHB was merely editing normally, or will they take the Elonka bait and ban him???

I would personally think that banning PHB is probably the likely outcome at this point....

I've changed my position on PHG, he's probably not correctible and his mistakes weren't good faith mistakes. Doesn't excuse Durova who didn't act better in any way.

Interesting.

Detrimental editing
5) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

I rarelly use the word lol, but this worth a lol. I like the selective way such propositions are used depending on the cases and who level the criticisms. And plus he doesn't even know yet if it apply.

Well, wouldn't it be logical that an encyclopedia would start by determining what was the most important content decision to make and then take any personnel decisions based on that???

Isn't it strange that WP does just the opposite? And probably, this will be settled and no one will be any wiser as to whether the Franco-Mongol alliance actually existed or not.....

He came up with the best worded thing ever, which should be included in every cases, yet it all depends on who level the criticism (if he doesn't know if it still apply still, why doesn't he include it in other cases?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

So is the proposed decision.

Be a known editor and your concerns are heard and this with one arbitration case. Not against the decision, but this case again shows the hypocrasy, the stupidness, the selectiveness, the inconsistency of the arbitration committee. If you are not a member like Elonka you can be victim of misquoting, misuses of sources, distortions even while arbitrations are proceeding.

Awwww, how sweet! Horologium gave Elonka a Barnstar of Dilligence for "ensuring historical accuracy" in her work on the Franco-Mongol Alliance and other topics --- even though he knows jack shit about the history of the Franco-Mongol Alliance.

Maybe she's wrong. Maybe she's right. Meh! Who cares? Elonka put up a good fight. That's good enough to earn Horologium's respect.