Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PHG and Elonka

PHG (talk · contribs) has been engaging in POV-pushing and tendentious editing since early September, and all other attempts at dispute resolution have failed: (RfC he is ignoring) (mediation offer he has declined)

• He is trying to claim that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299/1300, and he has been inserting this information in multiple places around Wikipedia.[1][2][3]
• He's also been trying to claim that there was a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols.[4] We've been discussing this extensively at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, with multiple archives just within the last few weeks, but he's resisting all community input and continues to edit war.[5][6][7]
• I tried an RFC, but he's ignoring that too, or he just creates another dozen threads on the talkpage with counter-accusations and personal attacks.[8][9][10] I have repeatedly offered to take things to mediation, but PHG has declined.[11]
• I've also tried posting for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and multiple WikiProjects, but it's such an obscure point of history, it's difficult to get many people commenting.[12][13][14][15][16][17] Plus we're trying to "prove the negative," that no, the Mongols did not conquer Jerusalem.
• PHG also keeps muddying the waters by adding more and more information (much of it from medieval primary sources)[18][19][20][21][22][23] to Franco-Mongol alliance, to the point where the article was over 150K in size, making it very difficult for anyone else to read it unless they wanted to devote hours to sorting through it. He even tried edit-warring to keep me from archiving the talkpage.[24]
• He seems in clear violation of WP:OWN. When his material is changed, he often reverts the changes, but when other sections are added, no matter how well-sourced, he deletes them as "original research".[25][26]
• He has also been resisting all attempts to allow the article to be split to a smaller size,[27][28][29] and further confuses things by issuing multiple personal attacks on those who disagree with him (calling them vain, incompetent, a liar, vandals, etc.), and he's so good at Wikilawyering, and he types so much text, it makes it even harder for other people to sort through.[30][31][32]

From what I've been told,[33] he has used these tactics at other articles too,[34] using multiple primary sources, refusing to negotiate in good faith, and, perhaps scariest of all, creating articles that look like they're well-sourced, and then pushing them through to Featured status, but in actuality he's either sourcing them to unreliable sources (like primary sources, hobbyist websites, or marketing copy on the back cover of a book), or he's twisting what sources say. For example, he created the Franco-Mongol alliance article and nommed it for FA within two weeks of creation, even though it had gross errors of fact[35] (like about this absurd "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" between the Mongols and the Knights Templar).

Things have now escalated to the point where he's creating other articles to push his biased POV. He created Mongol conquest of Jerusalem, which I moved to a more palatable Mongol raids into Palestine. Then despite resistance at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine#Disputed, he today made another article, Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, which I tried to redirect, but he just reverted me.[36]

In my opinion, this has gone well into the realm of WP:POINT now, as he is creating multiple POV Forks. He's also pretty much "camped" on this subject, not working on anything else (just look at his contribs, for weeks). Now, I'll freely admit that I'm actively involved in editing this topic, so I really need some non-involved assistance here. What should the next step be? Thanks, Elonka 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How about inventing a totally new guideline, which I am terming Block and Proxy; Go for a short term block of PHG and request a third party evaluate PHG's references and contentions and to argue for PHG's edits? Edit per the consensus then arrived at, unblock PHG and request their comments. Outright reversion would result in extended/indefinite block.

or

Simply block PHG outright (term to be determined) for violation of OWN and POINT, review PHG's contributions and adopt any that appear to be reasonably sourced? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Simply block" LessHeard vanU for his inappropriate comments on an inappropriate venue which look like an attempt at intimidating a superb contributor? Or admonish him to think twice before posting such comments in the future? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that most of this is way over my head given lack of knowledge of the subject. I am concerned by the creation of Mongol conquests and Jerusalem given that it appears to me looking at the the contributions to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance (especially the responses to the RfC) that the consensus seems to be that the sources do not support any conquest of Jerusalem having occured in the period in question by the Mongols. It seems I 'm not the only one worried by the development - see this page move by Danny [37]. This probably should be investigated further - especially by anyone with knowledge (or access to the relevant sources) about the period in question. WjBscribe 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some diffs of personal attacks would be an easy matter for administrators to deal with. POV pushing is difficult to deal with, but incivility is straightforward. Tim Vickers 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

True, there are some user conduct issues that are easily judged superficially, whereas this requires a much greater depth of analysis. Given that administrators have no greater editorial authority, these sorts of problems where content and conduct are not readily separable are much more difficult to deal with in a satisfactory manner... WjBscribe 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing can be dealt with step by step. It's tedious, yes, but not impossible. Let me begin with this coatrack article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem. If the editor continues tendentiously inserting the same Wikipedia:Fringe theories give appropriate user warnings, and if he ignores them, request a block. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(update) I am concerned that PHG is trying to further confuse the matter. The AfD so far is a resounding "delete", but PHG has now moved the article to yet another title, Mongol raids on Jerusalem, even though the AfD is still in process. He's also stripped a lot of the Jerusalem-related information out of Mongol raids into Palestine, and is instead stuffing the article full of other information that he's copy/pasting from Franco-Mongol alliance (I'm not sure why, perhaps to make it even longer and more difficult to follow?). I'd recommend:

• Reverting Mongol raids into Palestine back to its original state before PHG started messing with it, and
• Moving Mongol raids on Jerusalem back to Mongol conquests and Jerusalem while the AfD is running
• Somebody non-involved telling PHG to just go hands-off on this topic while the AfD is running, and go work on something else for awhile?

I'd do it myself, but don't want to get into yet another revert war with PHG, especially since things are already confusing enough.  :/ Anyone else want to handle it? --Elonka 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. I only expanded your article Mongol raids into Palestine with more information about the Mongol raids in Palestine, can't you see? (it used to be 99% Jerusalem only, but now content properly reflect the title, with new material on 1260, and 1271 campaings). Is it unacceptable to expand your own articles now? Also, the change to Mongol raids on Jerusalem also reflects your comments about "Conquests" being point of view, so I am merely following you here. Best regards. PHG 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, to the Defense

Dear all. So, here's the other side of the story now. Elonka has been adamant in denying an Alliance of the Frank with the Mongols, inspite of numerous reputable sources describing this event. Let me remind here I am the creator of this article, as well as most of its content.

• Article name: Elonka lost a vote by a far margin when she first tried to have the name article changed (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move)
• Article content: she forcefully insisted that these were "only attempts at alliance" despite numerous sources to the contrary, and used a 3:1 discussion to claim "consensus" and engage in multiple reverts for her version. I have always accepted her version, but only insisted that both views be represented (inclusionism): "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance". She recently lost her 3:1 "consensus" however, which became a 2:2, as there is only one editor'comment from an ancient discussion, which supports her stance.

Now, to answer the specifics raised by Elonka:

• 1) The conquest of Jerusalem is claimed by most contemporary historians of the 13th century (Muslims, Armenians, Europeans), considered as a possibility by a leading French historian of the period (Demurger), and considered as fact by a few other reputable modern historian: Andrew Jotischky in "The Crusaders and the Crusader States" states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. I believe this is ample justification to have an article exploring this subject, honestly showing both sides of the story. The article in question is already sizable at 36kb, and Elonka has been deleting it: here.
• 2) Tens of scholars do consider as fact that there was a Mongol alliance with the Franks, and there is ample explanation and referencing about that in the article Franco-Mongol alliance. Elonka initially claimed that all this was false, but had to acknowledge all the references were true, after doing her own research. She still insisted on branding this as "attempts towards an alliance only", but she is now only supported by one other editor on this point, and User:Srnec has come with a nice compromise, which I have adopted.
• 3) Elonka claims personal attacks, but these are essentially non-existant. I did say I doubted her competence when she claimed that the Principality of Antioch was not Frank, an historical absurdity to anyone who has the barest knowledge of the subject. That's about it. I declined once mediation, as the discussions were becoming endless and Elonka was loosing her argument anyway (the title), but I will accept mediation gladly should it help the matter.
• 4) Elonka has indeed made a post on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, but it is leading nowhere, as her point is slim, and goes against quantities of major sources.
• 5) When there is contention, I believe the best solution is to go into specifics and support everything being presented (and challenged) with reputable sources. When the article, originally an 80kb piece came under attack from Elonka, I simply developped the specifics and the references (300 now!), which I guess is quite fair. She now sees that her argument is contradicted by a huge quantity of sources... but now claims I have been floding her with such information.
• 6) I believe I have always respected Elonka's edits, when they are sourced. I erased once a long paragraph which I considered original research, but then left it and even expanded it when Elonka reinstated it. The current article being in dispute, my position (and that of several other editors) is that it is too early to slice it, and that discussion about factuality should be resolved first.

Now, I have my own concern about Elonka's editing. She has consistently been deleting referenced sources that she dislikes (fully detailed in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance for those who are interested). She consistently corrupts sources to fit her own point of view (same Talk Page). I believe that on Wikipedia we should faithfully respect sources, and balance contradictory opinions by reputable sources in a NPOV manner.

Fundamentally, I think this is essentially a matter of Elonka being unable to loose an argument. She will go as far as corrupting sources and attacking her fellow editors on a board such as this one. She has been attacking this article (Franco-Mongol alliance) from the beginning, and now has a hardtime backing from her initial position and recognize she may have been wrong in some way. She likes to posture as an expert of the Templars, but her lack of knowledge of the Crusades has been exposed repeatedly (like writing that Antioch was part of Armenia). I am a longtime recognized editor of Wikipedia, and I am afraid Elonka's behaviour is highly POV, partisan, and quite unbeneficial. According to her TalkPage, she seems to be a quite controversial editor, who is putting a lot of emphasis on self-promotion. There seems to be a lot of ego at work here. Best regards to all. PHG 06:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see verification of the most serious assertions such as misuse of source material. Elonka has made the parallel claims regarding PHG's use of sources. Please substantiate the assertion with specific diffs and examples. That's something we could address at this board. Otherwise, since both editors are on record as willing to seek mediation, please head to dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova. Just look at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. All details are listed there. Regards. PHG 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm an amateur medievalist, I do know of a professional one who is also a long-term Wikipedian. I've left a request on his talk page to review the material disputed in the above threads & offer an opinion on the AfD nomination. Hopefully he will do so, but no promises -- we are all volunteers, so he may decline for whatever reason. -- llywrch 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Work1

User:Elonka/Work1 has proven a fecund field of aggressive ultimatums aimed not at resolving anything, but at getting opponents blocked, too often successfully. WJBscribe again provides the illusion of third-party review: it is supremely unlikely that he arrived here unprompted.Proabivouac 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I provide "the illusion" of nothing. I reference a page move, takpage discussion and admit to not having the necessary knowledge of the area to make any judgment. I am frankly tired of you (someone who has been exposed as having made long term use of a sockpuppet to evade ArbCom sanctions) running around attempting to smear everyone else who has, by contrast, edited this project in good faith. Your increasingly desperate need to show misconduct on the part of your critics has become tiresome and fankly disruptibe. The deleted page contains a draft of Elonka's post here - I'm not sure why you flag it up so dramatically. Your contribution here is intended only to stir up trouble - back off. WjBscribe 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am seeing a clear pattern where User:Elonka first tries to delete references and misinterpret sources to fit her point of view (numerous clearly documented instances on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance), and when she looses her argument escalates into major general accusations on such pages as this one, slandering her oponent. Regards PHG 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is now the second time that PHG has accused me of slander.[38][39] Which is added to his previous tendencies to namecall, such as a previous opponent in a content dispute who he accused of vandalism,[40] or attacks me for being "vain".[41] or "bossy and authoritarian."[42] I am getting quite tired of this incivility, steady stream of personal attacks, repeated false accusations, and now that he's upped to "slander," implied legal threats?? I again ask for administrator assistance here. It seems clear to me, that PHG is just arguing to be arguing at this point. For example, look at this comment on my talkpage, where he is discounting the comments at an RfC, saying that they are "ancient."[43] When in actuality the RfC was just started two weeks ago. It no longer seems to me that PHG is arguing in good faith. His posts always sound very polite, but when you read them he's consistently ignoring all community input, and he's indicating that he has every intent of just continuing to revert and edit war, while launching increasingly uncivil counter-accusations at anyone who disagrees. --Elonka 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Actually I am the one being attacked and slandered here, so I do not think it is attacking you just to say that. I don't know how best to qualify it, and I must admit your methods are sometimes irritating, but other editors have also commented on this. Let me quote Arnouft: "Your repeated reference to you being important in getting Templar to FA; and open doubts in accepted academics that do not support your view on this issue, seems to indicate (to me at least) that you are claiming all Templar related articles as your own (ie be careful about the WP:OWN guideline yourself as well)" [44]. I also corrected in the minute my comments from "Aren't you being a little bit bossy and authoritarian here, one-sidedly deleting content?" to "Aren't you being a little bit rude and unrespectfull of others here, one-sidedly deleting content?". I think that's rather kindly said, towards someone who had just deleted 35kb of content in one stroke. Please kindly respect others's work and edits Elonka, and be open to the variety of scholarly opinions on a given subject. Best regards. PHG 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike how the dispute has been degenerating. I urge both participants to stop accusing each other of incivility and concentrate on resolving the content dispute at hand. Reducing discussion to the level of mutual accusations in incivility is never helpful. Actually, I've got the impression that PHG has behaved commendably in the face of blatant disregard for his work, which includes a purposefully derailed FAC and now a rather questionable AfD. Elonka has the reputation for never being able to let go, for needing implacably to triumph. I don't imply that this is necessarily a bad thing for a wikipedian, especially one who regularly deals with trolls and kooks, but in this particular case such an approach is not really called for. Guys, please be more considerate and respectful towards each other. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ghirla. I tremendously appreciate your support and intervention. PHG 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, please reconsider. The FAC was not derailed for personal reasons, but because the article had deliberately false information in it, like a claim about Jerusalem being "captured by surprise" by the Mongols and Knights Templar.[45] This isn't a minor point of trivia where a date is off by a year, this is a major rewriting of history. And to call the AfD "questionable" is mind-boggling, considering it's a WP:SNOW "Delete". Ghirla, I'm actually surprised at you, considering how much you have been a staunch defender of getting good information into Wikipedia, and how much trouble you yourself have had with POV-pushers. Please, I encourage you to actually look at the information that PHG has been trying to put into Wikipedia. Let's be clear what he did here: PHG, an editor who supposedly has multiple FAs to his name, created an extremely biased article in August,[46] sourced it to dubious sources including pseudo-history websites, and then two weeks after creating it, he nominated it himself for featured status,[47] without going through any other kind of Peer Review or GA process. When concerns were raised at the FA nom, he would label them as {{done}} even though he hadn't fixed things.[48] And the really scary thing is that he was being praised for "great scholarship",[49] (and Ghirla, you even gave him a barnstar[50]) because the article looked well-written and well-sourced, even though it was full of crap poor quality information.

If there's one thing we need to focus on here at Wikipedia, past the petty squabbles, past the incivility, past the endless chasing of sockpuppets, it's the one clear goal that we're here to create an encyclopedia, and that our Featured articles are supposed to represent high quality work. PHG's behavior is especially scary in this regard, because he has shown that he has learned how to game the system. He knows how to make an article look accurate and well-sourced, even though it's full of garbage. And even more scary, is that when he's challenged by multiple editors about his sources, he refuses to back down. He continues to edit war, he resists community input, disregards RfC comments, ignores talkpage consensus, and just keeps posting these false counter-accusations and long messages about obscure points, to further confuse the community about what's going on. One of his tactics has been to quote from books and websites in French, to make it look like there may be genuine scholarly disagreement on some points. But I speak French, and I have access to large university libraries, and I've gone and looked up the sources that PHG has been using. I've read the original French for myself, and he is misquoting sources. It pretty much horrifies me that anyone (especially you Ghirla) is buying into PHG's tactics. Please Ghirla, I know you mistrust me because of a Piotrus incident from a year ago, but I thought that at least we were on the same side in terms of one thing: promoting accurate information on Wikipedia. --Elonka 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, please refactor the above. Although the statement has plenty of diffs it detracts from one's credibility to use some of those turns of phrase in a thread where you also complain the other party has been uncivil. Regarding the overall dispute, ANI is seldom effective at resolving high level disagreements between two established editors. I think the greatest chance of getting some positive result here is on the mutual complaints about improper use of sources. To both editors, please focus further discussion on this particular issue and set forth a few illustrative examples point by point. There ought to be enough bilingual Wikipedians to perform an independent review. Durova^Charge! 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, done. I apologize to anyone who may have been offended. --Elonka 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, thank you for the apology. I would be delighted if you could highlight instances where I would have misquoted French authors. As a matter of fact, you are actually the author of several proven misquotes as can be seen easily by anyone on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance (1, 2, 3 for a few examples). May I suggest we continue our discussions there on specifics? As I already said, if I claimed anything in error sometime, I will gladly retract myself (as I did long ago when you challenged the validity of Templar Internet sites as sources), and I expect the same from you. Best regards. PHG 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by PHG

PHG has moved Mongol conquests and Jerusalem during its AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem). This is disruptive and looks like an attempt to evade a consensus to delete the article.- Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything disruptive about PHG's wish to improve the article. One could make a sound argument that his action is legitimate and to the point. What I don't understand is why two or three wikipedians have to endorse and second everything that Elonka says, no matter what the subject. If one follows their comments for an extended period, he may conclude that Elonka is infallible, which is probably not quite true. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for moving the article during an AfD, I didn't realize it should be a problem (I was actually acting to accomodate a complaint from Elonka that "Conquest" was POV, but that raids are recognized by nearly all historians)... I guess the article can be deleted all the same if someone wishes to. Regards PHG 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's work together to sort this stuff out. You're obviously a serious editor, so I am hopeful that this situation can be resolved by mutual agreement. That's always the best solution. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure. PHG 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: close the thread and reprimand Elonka

Close the thread and reprimand Elonka for repeated abuse of this board to short-circuit the routine content dispute. This is getting tiresome. This is not a Wikipedia complaints department. If the user is grossly tedious and requires a thorough investigation, try RfC. If some share my point that user RfC is almost always useless, ArbCom is the right venue to investigate a complex pattern of abuse. There is also a community sanctions board. Instead too many users come here to try getting the upper hand in content disputes through seeking sanctions. Utterly reprehensible and must be stopped now. --Irpen 19:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "complex pattern of abuse", as PHG is a prolific contributor in good standing. Elonka erred in bringing her content dispute to this noticeboard, because this is not the place for settling legitimate content disputes. The theory of a Franco-Mongol alliance has some following and lies within the boundaries of normal scholarly dispute. It adds nothing to Elonka's argument to misrepresent it as a "fringe theory". --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such history of abuse, but if you supply diffs I'll gladly consider your evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional Evidence to Consider Regarding PHG's Conduct

Dear Administators,

I had no intention of posting on this thread due to my history with PHG, but given his solicitation of the involvement of others, I believe it might be useful for the reviewer to consider the following arguments. As a point of note, I am not here to exchange barbs with anyone, least of all PHG; however, Elonka raises legitimate points regarding his conduct towards other points of view and other editors.

PHG has displayed the same behavior on the Franco-Mongol alliance as he has on India related articles, and it is only because I noticed this same pattern and other users' frustration with it, that I involved myself in this process. Our debate however pertains to the Indo Greeks and related India articles. Anyone familiar with this topic knows that there is a high degree of uncertainty around it and that even the most eminent scholars cannot draw firm conclusions; however, PHG has insisted that his and only his perspective be maintained on the article pages. This is the net result:

*Misrepresentation of sources: PHG repeatedly claims sources such as A.K. Narain (eminent historian on the Indo Greeks) as support for his aggrandized map of the Indo Greeks. A.K. Narain actually gained fame for demolishing the Indo Greek theory of W.W. Tarn (a self declared lover of greece--he is known for his unobjective romanticization of Alexander). Here is Narain on the topic: "Menander's kingdom shows Indo-Greek power at its height. He ruled from the Kabul valley in the west to the Ravi (river in Pakistan) in the east, and from the Swat valley in north to northern arachosia in the south" (Narain, A.K. The Indo Greeks. BR Publishing Corp: Delhi. 2003.p.122)

In spite of this, PHG uses Narain's name on an overly augmented map showing the Indo Greek realm throughout all of northern India and into even the peninsula (which is not supported by any legitimate historian).

Narain again on overexpansion: Gujarat: "The fact remains that there is no evidence that either Alexander or the Indo Greeks conquered Gujarat: the account in the Periplus is just a sailor's story". ((Narain, A.K. The Indo Greeks. BR Publishing Corp: Delhi. 2003. Page 118)

Yet the reader is given this overextended map that reaches into Gujarat with the further injury of being told that this is Narain's perspective. Furthermore, the Indo Greek coin book that PHG uses as a reference for Tarn contains a map. But that book was compiled with another author in an earlier period. Narain himself provides his own map in his most recent publication "The Indo Greeks" 2003 which is in line with his actual written scholarship and the smaller more sober view of Indo greek territory.

This is just one example of misrepresentation of sources (others can be provided upon request).

*Violating Agreements: User vastu (the most civil editor in the debate) negotiated a compromise map that all parties agreed to [[51]]. As soon as vastu become inactive, user PHG violated the agreement and created an even more flagrantly augmented map. When asked why he reneged, he simply said that it was against his "better judgment", in spite of the fact that by his own admission, PHG said that Vastu's map was more in line with scholarly representations. Moreover, he claimed that "new information" had come in his way from an art historian's writing (mario bussagli). But Bussagli just recycles Tarn's defunct theory of a grand strategy by the first Indo Greek demetrius to recreate the Mauryan empire and that he invaded india out of a show of support for buddhism--all speculations by Tarn without an iota of evidence. So clearly PHG just waited for a convenient opportunity to restore his biased perspective.

*Original research: If there is no evidence for his view, then PHG will find a primary source and interpret it himself to suit his view. The best example is on the Chandragupta Maurya page:

"Chanakya had trained Chandragupta under his guidance and together they planned the destruction of Dhana Nanda. The Mudrarakshasa of Visakhadutta as well as the Jaina work Parisishtaparvan talk of Chandragupta's alliance with the Himalayan king Parvatka, sometimes identified with Porus.[28] This Himalayan alliance gave Chandragupta a composite and formidable army, which is said to have included the Shakas (Indo-Scythians), Yavanas (probably Greeks), Kambojas, Kiratas, Parasikas and Bahlikas." (Phg's edit included the writing above and the primary reference below)

“ "Kusumapura was besieged from every direction by the forces of Parvata and Chandragupta: Shakas, Yavanas, Kiratas, Kambojas, Parasikas, Bahlikas and others, assembled on the advice of Canakya." ” —Visakhadutta, Mudrarakshasa 2 (from the French translation, in "Le Ministre et la marque de l'anneau", ISBN 2-7475-5135-0)

Just as Elonka pointed out, PHG inserts these blocks of primary source material and spins the implication. In contrast, here is Nilakantha Shastri (one of the most eminent scholars on the topic) on the so called "Composite Army":

"In the play [Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta] the battle of intrigue proves more efficacious than the arbitrament of the sword. None of the Mlechchha chieftains haven names which can be regarded as standing for genuine Greek or Persian originals and the appearance of the Hunas in connection with the Magadhan conflict of the fourth century B.c. exposes the true character of several incidents narrated in the play." (Page 147, "Age of the Nandas and Mauryas")

Anyone familiar with this period knows that the huns did not appear on the Indian political scene for another 700 years. But phg insists on including it because it mentions the greeks. This leads into fanwank.

An even more egregious example was in his reference to Indo Greek influence on Indian coinage. User PHG insisted that Alauddin Khilji ( a 14th century Turkic sultan of Northern India) created a coin that was influenced by the Indo Greeks simply because he inscribed the title “Sikander al Sani” or “the Second Alexander”. He provided no references, yet edit warred to keep that in place and stated that it was yet another example of indo greek influence on indian coinage. In actuality, prior to the advent of the muslim turks, no mention of Alexander of Macedon is found in Indian sources. This was indicative of Alexander’s impact on the Perso/Islamic experience. PHG's edit:

" Influence Of Indo Greek Coinage

As late as the 13th century, the Sultan of Delhi Mohammad I (1295-1315), one of the first Muslim rulers of northern India, would use on his coins the title Sikander el-sani ("The second Alexander"), in a reference to his famous predecessor in the conquest of India [29] ." [[52]]

However, this is not influence, but rather, it is an example of political propaganda or conceit. Where is the actual numismatic influence? There is none. He has committed original research in this mention because he is interpreting an artifact in accordance with his views.

• Fanwank-PHG clogs up once concise yet informative articles with topics he wants to hear about. The best example is on the Yamuna page:

Read PHG's rationale for writing about Seleucus (who did not go anywhere near the Yamuna River in India). He writes : "Very simply, suppose I am reading an article on the Hellenistic world, and mention of the Yamuna turns up (something like "Alexander never reached the Yamuna"). Then I would click "Yamuna" to know more about it. Knowing how it was discovered by the Greeks, later, following the expeditions of Seleucus, is most interesting and relevant PHG 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) [[53]]

The fact remains that neither Alexander nor Seleucus reached the Yamuna. So why the mention? Merely because it has something to do with the Greeks? Should I also add in discussions of how the French and the Portuguese all “discovered” the Yamuna even though the later two never conquered it either? This is clearly fanwank.

*Amalgamation of Separate Maps into One: User PHG created an aggrandized map of Indo Greek territory, but claims that he is just incorporating separate points of view. When asked repeatedly why we can't have three maps to show all perspectives, he remarked that it " Can't be more NPOV" [[54]].

However, it just looks like one big map showing a progressive expansion instead of three different perspectives. When pressed on the fact that this would confuse casual readers, he simply remarked "vandalism" and did not answer [[55]]. Why not have three separate maps? Because he would lose his monopoly on perspective.

*Blanket and Baseless Accusations of Vandalism: Whenever legitimate edits are made, PHG automatically refers to them as vandalism because he does not agree with the perspective (see Indo Greek, Mauryan Empire, Chandragupta, etc Pages).

*Usage of Obsolete and Suspect sources: Aside from using views of the Colonial writer W.W. Tarn as the sole perspective on the Indo Greek page (he attempts to use an art historian named bussagli as cover since he simply parrots Tarn's theories. Art historians do not command the same understanding of the topic that actual dedicated indo greek historians such as A.K. Narain and his mentors, such as the British historian Whitehead, do), PHG has also used inaccurate maps, such as the german one mentioned below, as references:

"Sponsianus: I agree that the south-eastern parts of the Indo-Greek conquests seem less motivated than those in the north (Mathura). Also, the “Atlas der Welt Geschichte” map was actually striped for Indo-Greek territory, full colour only for the original Bactrian kingdom. It was however based on the outdated model that all conquests took place under the long reign of Demetrios I, supported by Menander as a sub-king." [[56]]

In spite of the problems with this map, which even the supplying contributor (Sponsianus) criticized, PHG retained the map and referenced it. Moreover, the Oxford Map is also cited, but it looks nothing like his amalgamation: http://www215.pair.com/sacoins/images/maps/indo_greek.gif

*Article Degradation: PHG degrades article readability and approachability for the casual reader by unnecessarily inserting large blocks of primary source material. The result is so atrocious that these pages become masters theses in his attempt to defend his perspective (i.e. "Preliminary Greek Presence in India" and " Evidence for Initial invasion" on Indo Greek page)[[57]].

How can an elementary school student begin to learn and appreciate this article with these overly pedantic attempts to defend his perspective? This is an encyclopedia article and not a dissertation.

*Incivility and attempts to discredit others: Setting aside PHG's baseless attempts to characterize my perspective as "marginalized" and "isolated" (three other editors, Vastu, Pavanapuram, and Windy City Dude all posted repeatedly to cite their support), PHG also attacked numerous individuals, including the most courteous, Vastu. Here is vastu's post on my talk page:

"I was looking at the Indo-Greek article recently, and was indeed dismayed by the state of the map - I saw the jibes that some of the contributors took at my credibility while I was away, citing my original map as proof I dont know the topic - and frankly, I dont know whether I can be bothered contributing anything - after seeing some great articles slowly ruined over the past year (some of which were featured status), I have started to doubt wikipedia's system. Thats why I didnt sign on for so long (only recently to create some articles for Indian comics)." [[58]]

Is this what we want for our most polite contributors and would be editors? Total demoralization at the wikipedia process and loss of interest to contribute?

The fundamental problem is that PHG's prolific contributions are being conflated with quality. And his veneer of cheerfulness masks contempt for other editors (fortunately, we have seen this contempt on full display with myself, Elonka, Pavanapuram, Vastu, and Windy City Dude).

Now, I am not here to engage and argue with his defenders (who will concentrate on levelling charges at me rather than responding to the legitimate points I have raised about PHG), and this is only a small measure of the full impact of PHG's actions on wikipedia. I am here only to posit further evidence for the review board's consideration. I am available for any of their questions.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear all. I know Devanampriya quite well. He has a long history of reverts and deletions of sources in favour of a very India-centric/nationalistic approach to history. He has been totally marginalized on Hellenistic pages, and I don't think anybody supports his actions on Wikipedia except a very few very marginal people (a few of them apparently sock-puppets: he appears at the bottom of this page for a sock-puppet case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Devanampriya). For those interested, please check the record. Best regards. PHG 04:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry PHG. I don't think you or your posse gets to level accusations of sock-puppetry and then act like your accusations are validated by anything but pure speculation. I've noticed you are adept at trying to discredit your detractors by any means you can muster. Just because multiple people disagree with you doesn't make any of them sock-puppets. The fact that they all have similar misgivings about your contributions is an indication that you need to change your ways, nothing more insidious than that.

Moreover, aside from a dedicated cadre on your side, I don't see a great deal of broad-based support by informed writers on your side of the debate either. Most of the posts come from people dedicated to insulting your detractors. The fact that you seem to have more time to devote to Wikipedia editing than others does not lend any extra weight to your argument I am afraid.

Windy City Dude 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Windy City Dude. With all due respect, if you wish to know, I actually have a familly and a business to take care of, and it is not exactly my cup of tea to have to spend so much time defending proper historians against small, partisan contributors, who just prop up once every few months to throw invective. Best regards. PHG 06:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I further point out that Elonka is currently coaching this questionable User:Devanampriya to try to find material against me? [59] I'm not sure if it's quite ethical... isn't called something like "netting" on Wikipedia? Best regards to all. PHG 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The moment I saw that diff, I said, that user must not have e-mail enabled…and lo: [60] That user must not frequent IRC, either.Proabivouac 07:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the above comment (deleted by a contributor). PHG 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I think you may have misunderstood Elonka's response to Devanampriya. She told him that has post was too long (which it was), and asked for further info, perhaps because she's suspicious about his assertions, but wants to know if there is any truth in what he's saying. My own opinion is that his evidence is not very credible, especially in light of the sock puppetry you mentioned, but please, let's not inflame this dispute for no reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to throw my support behind what Elonka and Devanampriya said. I had a short lived foray into making maps for some of the India related articles and had some run ins with PHG and a small posse of editors he has behind him. Devanampriya has detailed more about it, but frustration over dealing with PHG's stonewalling, edit warring, and constant sniping at the integrity of other editors eventually turned me off to the whole deal. One needs only look at any talk-page in which he participates and marvel at how quickly they manage to devolve. I know correlation does not equate to causation, but when one notices that the constant factor in the toxic tone of these talk pages in the Ancient Indian history pages is either PHG or his dedicated cadre of apologists, what kind of conclusion are we supposed to draw?

Those allegations of sock-puppetry are just poor attempts at trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with them and are scarcely worth mentioning until an admin actually weighs in on the accusations. PHG has yet to actually prove anyone wrong about anything. I can't speak for others, but as for myself I didn't drop out because he was right, but because I was sick of dealing with his indefatigable stonewalling. He's a master of the Chewbacca_Defense.

Windy City Dude 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman,

My apologies for the extra long post but I just wanted to be thorough. If you have questions about the credibility of my evidence against PHG, please feel free to ask me and I will respond. I will note that PHG is not responding to them but merely attempt to browbeat me with allegations of sockpuppetry. That is Elonka's point. If PHG has no proof, he tries to attack people's competence (as he did with her) or attempt to taint people with allegations. Irrespective here is a condensed version of PHG's offenses for your reference:

Misrepresentation of Sources

Narain did not endorse the views that PHG was advocating. He drew a much smaller map in his book "The Indo Greeks" that corresponds to the red map compiled by Windy City Dude.

Use of Obsolete Sources

Here is E. Seldeslachts, a EUROPEAN scholar on Tarn:

"The reconstruction of Tarn, fascinating as it is, is now largely outdated" (p.265). End of the Road for the Indo Greeks.

But Tarn and his outdated theory is cited throughout the Indo Greek Article. Mario Bussagli is occasionally used to mask this (but he also uses Tarn's outdated theory as does the German map that PHG cites), but the fact remains all the quotes correspond directly to W.W. Tarn's book "The Greeks in Bactria and India"

Original Research and Incorrect Unreferenced notes:

Here is an utterly erroneous and unreferenced claim made by PHG: "The earliest Indian writing on astronomy, the "Yavanajataka" or "Saying of the Greeks", is a translation from Greek to Sanskrit made by "Yavanesvara" ("Lord of the Greeks") in 149–150 CE under the rule of the Western Kshatrapa king Rudrakarman I." [[61]]

The vedanga jyotisha was the first (compiled in the 2nd millenium BCE)[62].

Article Degradation

As noted by user Adam Bishop below, this is an Encyclopedia. There are certain standards for what is appropriate here and on an academic paper. PHG degrades article readability and approachability for the casual reader by unnecessarily inserting large blocks of primary source material. The result is so atrocious that these pages become masters theses in his attempt to defend his perspective (i.e. "Preliminary Greek Presence in India" and " Evidence for Initial invasion" on Indo Greek page)[[63]].

Moreover, by interpreting primary sources himself (original research) he can cast doubt on established facts and consensus. He did this on the Chandragupta Maurya page where he kept inserting quotes from Strabo to cast doubt on the territory that Seleucus surrendered; however, as firmly established by the stone edicts, the Mauryas clearly ruled over Afghanistan. So why does PHG persist in stating that Seleucus only gave land along the indus? To impose his eurocentric view. [[64]]

How can an elementary school student begin to learn and appreciate this article with these overly pedantic attempts by PHG to defend his perspective against others? This is an encyclopedia article and not a dissertation.

I can go on listing evidence if the admin reviewers would like, but please consider this without the cloud of sockpuppetry, which after all, does not determine the accuracy of PHG's content edits and NPOV skewing. My point is this: Here we have 2 separate topics, 2 different editors, and yet virtually the exact same complaints: Use of obsolete or unusable sources, incivility, original research, and misquoting. PHG rules these pages as if they were his personal fiefdoms and I truly hope you can put an end to this. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Devanampriya 04:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on

This thread is getting way too long and complex for ANI.' Serious allegations have been made about the integrity of at least two established editors, including POV pushing, misrepresentation of sources, abuse of ANI to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, and bad faith dealings with other editors. I suggest we consider taking this to WP:RFC or even WP:RFAR. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. RFC has already been tried, so suggest mediation or arbitration. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom or mediation this horrible mess. No admin is going to wade into this without weeks of preparation. --Haemo 05:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another RfC, this time with experienced editors and admins willing to read up on this information and help by offering their informed opinions regarding article content? I understand that there are outstanding claims of user conduct, but at its root this seems to primarily be a content dispute. --Iamunknown 05:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, if the claims about misrepresentation of sources hold water. That would be a policy matter. WP:AGF pending better evidence. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, despite the fact that PHG is referring to the RfC as an "ancient discussion" [65] it's actually quite active, as it was just started two weeks ago. Anyone who has an opinion on these matters is welcome to participate, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that nobody contributed to it for the last 2 weeks... and it does feel quite ancient with all the Talk Pages discussions in between, but of course I agree it is not "ancient" in a standard historical sense. :) Regards PHG 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam Bishop's statement

Llywrch asked me to jump back in here and try to help...I am not really an expert or professional, but if I am the only one here with any formal training in medieval history then I suppose that counts for something. Now, first of all, I must report that I was first contacted by Elonka way back when this all began, so if I ever seem to be taking Elonka's side it's probably just because she got to me first. On the other hand, before I knew what PHG was doing, I did make a note that his chosen sources were a little odd; I've been following the discovery of new sources by PHG and Elonka with interest, and, to be honest, with some amusement. I'm sure I will sound like a pompous academic jerk saying this, but this whole situation reaffirms my belief that history should not be left to amateurs and dilettants. I know it's the sort of thing that everyone thinks they and their 4-year-old child can do, like abstract art which may or may not have been painted by elephants, but it's not. I don't think anyone has any idea what they're doing, and thus we have the current fiasco.

The essence of the matter is that this is not the sort of thing we should be writing about on Wikipedia. This is very important. What is relevant to Wikipedia, probably, is that the Mongols showed up, there were some attempts at an alliance, and it didn't work out. Everything else is "original research", perhaps not to the exact definition we are supposed to use on Wikipedia, but original research none the less. This would make an excellent university research paper, and it is the kind of debate that could be carried out over a series of journal articles (or, if I must again be a jerk, more likely over Internet message boards), but it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

I know PHG is usually considered an excellent contributor, and I do believe it is relevant that Ghirla and Irpen are sticking up for him, as they are also excellent and valued contributors, and Elonka likewise. I am not familiar with the vast amount of work everyone has done elsewhere, but I believe it proves that no one here is a crazy POV-pusher, rather the problem is that both sides have bitten off more than they chew. Deleting and starting over might be the best idea, although I'm sure neither side would accept that.

I will end with this: Aegri animi ista iactatio est: primum argumentum compositae mentis existimo posse consistere et secum morari. Illud autem vide, ne ista lectio auctorum multorum et omnis generis voluminum habeat aliquid vagum et instabile. Adam Bishop 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Thank you for your message, and thank you for the recognition of the quality of the contributors involved in this discussion. I am not sure I agree that the Franco-Mongol alliance is not a subject we should write about on Wikipedia. It is extensively discussed and documented by such major authors as René Grousset ("Histoire des Croisades"), Steven Runciman ("A history of the Crusades") for about 100 pages each, Jean Richard in "Histoire des Croisades", or by Alain Demurger in "Jacques de Molay" for the later period, all some of the most recognized historians of the Crusades. It is a true subject of academic discussion and publication. I am not sure either about the qualification that "everything else is just original research" beyond the few facts you mention, because all the article does is laying out the various scholarly sources on the subject, with extensive references everytime. I believe one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that we can delve into quite minute and arcane but fascinating subjects (such as this one, or Hasekura Tsunenaga, or the Boshin war, or the Indo-Greek Kingdom, or the Imperial Japanese Navy, all some of my FAs), with quite a lot of detail, and I think this is what makes this encyclopedia so special. In effect some of these articles can become some of the best compilations anywhere of the data and interpretations on a given subject. Best regards. PHG 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya

I have not examined all of PHG's FAs, but just looking at Indo-Greek kingdom, I see that the article is definitely not stable, and edit wars appear to have been going on for months. I'm not saying who's right or wrong in terms of the content, but I don't believe that it's proper for PHG to have been reverting people with an edit summary implying that he's fixing "vandalism".[66][67] Content disputes are not vandalism. --Elonka 07:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you're going to challenge PHG's FA's in order to punish him for crossing you here. Maybe there are problems with them, maybe there aren't…but I'm quite certain you don't care except for that.Proabivouac 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Plenty of reputable editors have been qualifying User:Devanampriya as a vandal, I am but a single one. And actually most of the reverts of his deletions are not by me, but by other contributors [68]. I am sorry for you that you now have to look for an ally in this questionable contributor. His edits are not really about editorial content (he almost does not contribute anything, maybe 1-2 pages in his whole Wikilife), but about consistently deleting referenced material in favour of a sectarian Indo-centric view of history. Best regards. PHG 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the user's history: Devanampriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I see no blocks, nor do I see any vandalism warnings on the user's talkpage. There may be a case for 3RR, but that's not vandalism. I also see some incivility in Devanampriya's history (primarily where you're involved), but that's not vandalism either. Devanampriya's edits may or may not have been wise, but they appear to have been made in good faith, though there is obviously a strong difference of opinion. But again, this is not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#What vandalism is not. --Elonka 07:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is this incredibly lengthy content dispute doing on ANI? 10:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.62.175 (talk)

Dear Elonka, you may have noticed that User:Devanampriya has also been claiming “Vandalism” towards respectable users such as User:Aldux, User:Sponsianus, User:Giani g or myself. So, in your great fairness, you might also include that point in your evaluation of his actions. Is he technically a “Vandal”? (according to Wikipedia policy, cf Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism). I would say probably yes. He resorts to Blanking extensively, by deleting referenced material that he dislikes [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], although I am sure you would argue he at least gives a (usually uncivil) reason to his blanking. He resorts extensively to Discussion page vandalism (To User:Giani g: “You have no knowledge about the subject matter but simply parrot PHG's positions and unleash invective upon me.” To User:Sponsianus: “The only thing nonsensical is your affected claims of objectivity, sponsy” To PHG: “Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology” , “your narrow-mindedness”, “your raging philhellenism in your quest to subvert history”, “you and many of these pseudo-historians”, all this is a sampling of Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom). He resorts to User space vandalism through various insults of the same kind. He resorts to Edit summary vandalism by making offensive comments there (one of the definitions of vandalism indeed): To Giani g: “you are ignorant in these matters, so stop inserting inaccuracies.” To Kannauj: “it's called fanwank”, To Aldux:”you steamroll over dissent. You are not an objective admin. Recuse yourself”, To PHG ”removed eurocentric fanwank”, all on [75]). And of course Malicious account creation (sock-puppet cases in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Devanampriya to overturn the 3R rule, one of which is detailed hereunder, worthy of account suspension Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User : Devanampriya). Dear Elonka, I am afraid you really shouldn’t need to associate yourself with such a contributor. Your case against me is so slim that you have to use vandals or semi-vandals to support your claims now. Or maybe there is a rationale to that: you seem to have a very low tolerance for scholars of differing opinions than yours, as Devanampriya is of scholars challenging his dream of a pure India, devoid of foreign influences. He continuously deletes references about the Ancient Greek influence in India, as you delete or corrupt sources about the Franco-Mongol alliance. I, for my part, am an inclusionist: I believe the various opinions of reputable scholars deserve representation, and should be presented in a balanced, NPOV format. And I also believe this is what Wikipedia stands for. Best regards. PHG 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I mention that User:Elonka is still coaching questionable User:Devanampriya to find material against me? [76] Is this considered as ethical conduct on Wikipedia? Am I supposed to correspond with Elonka’s detractors and coach them on what they should bring against her? Regards to all. PHG 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments to Devanampriya.[77] Also, I would point out that Admin Blnguyen has agreed that there may be some merit to Devanampriya's concerns, has protected the Indo-Greek Kingdom article, and taken it to Featured Article Review, both of which actions I strongly agree with. --Elonka 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I comment that this FA Review nomination of Indo-Greek kingdom is the result of a request made by our vandal/sock-pupetter/blanker User:Devanampriya to User:Blnguyen?... nothing glorious indeed, but I'm glad Elonka rejoices about it. PHG 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Could you kindly explain to us why you still stand by User:Devanampriya as a key to your case? After all his acts of vandalism, sock-pupettry etc... do you objectively think he is a commendable, proven, user of high-standing who deserves to be listened to on this board to throw dirt at me? And may I ask you again why you need this kind of support to advance your case, even telling him what he should do to bring material against me? [78] Are you so desperate that you need to clinch to that sort of contributor? PHG 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin who is just trying to get to the bottom of this dispute, I took a look at the last 100 edits to the Indo-Greek Kingdom article. By my count Devanampriya & PHG have both used the word "vandal" towards each other twice, & Giano g called Devanampriya a "vandal" once; the only other usage of this word was by an anon IP (who wrote that the previous edit was not vandalism), & reversions of a group of edits by anon IPs (which is likely actual, inserting gibberish or deleting text-style vandalism). Also, Devanampriya has used the word "revert" or "rv" 8 times, PHG 4, and Aldux 2. Lastly, several editors who have not participated in this thread on WP:AN/I have had their contributions lost in the ongoing reversion war, some of which are simply identified as spelling and grammar corrections. This simple test indicates that no one editor is being singled out for abuse, but that the members of a small group are giving as much venom as they are receiving. If the parties involved aren't going to participate in mediation, then the ArbCom may be the only way to end this dispute. -- llywrch 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aldux's one cent

Oh God, I really did my best to pretend not knowing of this thread, because if there's something of wikipedia I don't like, it's all these disputes.... Unfortunately, it didn't work, so I'll just give my one cent (two cents is too much, guys). To begin with, I will start saying I have a great esteem of both the editors in question, who I judge among our most brilliant contributors, and so I observed with pain the progressive escalation that took place on Franco-Mongol alliance. In my personal opinion, it began with Elonka moving some objections to parts of the content of the article, which while advanced in some occasions a bit dogmatically. For example the positions like "there was no alliance", "Jerusalem was never taken" (these are not literal quotes, but I think they reflect his general position), while in my opinion very convincingly advanced, and also, I believe, respecting historical consensus, are not the only possible, as secondary sources, some of which I viewed myself, leave space for considering them themes well over fringe, even if, I repeat, certainly secondary. While incivility accusations seem excessive (but this may be because I've seen really furious hate speech being hurled when I monitored problematic Balkan-related articles), through time I do think I perceived on the talk an increasing frustration by Elonka, towards what he perceived, IMO correctly, as a pretty possessive attitude by PHG in regards to the article, that could be envisaged as a break of WP:OWN (and maybe also WP:POINT, even if I must add that I find also Elonka's behaviouur pretty pointy). When it became clear that the tension among the two chief editors was becoming explosive, it was proposed seperately on two occasions by first me and later Srnec (I think, at least) that both should leave the article awhile and do something else for a couple of weeks, hoping that part of the tension would have defused on their return, but neither of us was really listened to. I have a feeling this article has became a sort of obsession for PHG and Elonka. Maybe locking the article for a month wouldn't be a bad idea, even if it may be too late for this now. Regarding content issues, of which already too much has been said on this thread; I will only say that's Elonka's frustration is making her unreasonable, because while I'm certainly no genius, I do know something of history, from which after all I earn my bread, and PHG's history articles seem to me of good quality. They tend to use too much primary sources (a very common problem, BTW, in wikipedia) and are often over-long, and tend to expound too much on certain lines of historical research, which doesn't surprise me really much, because to believe that an absolutely neutral article is a pretty naive view. And a final note: Blnguyen hasn't taken positions on the goods or bads of that other article, but simply did what any sensible admin should do when an editor moves strong and specificated criticisms toward a FA, that is invite him to open a WP:FAR, which is not a condemnation, actually they should be done far more often. Also, Blnguyen's personal objections are in my view perfectly sensible, with a possible objection to 1e), as I thinks it's mainly a one man crusade, as Vastu has left ages ago (which is a pity), and the Pavanapuram account left extremely few edits before leaving. Also Windy City Dude has made a very reduced number of edits, and, in all honesty, I'm a bit suspicious regarding the striking similarity of their editing patterns, even if it may be just a coincidence. As for speaking of Devanampriya, I'm not the most indicated to do this, as I'm a bit biased in his regards. I just hope these words will defuse a bit the sentiments, even I'm not overoptimist.--Aldux 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aldux,

Vastu left a few months ago because he got tired of PHG's antics:

"I was looking at the Indo-Greek article recently, and was indeed dismayed by the state of the map - I saw the jibes that some of the contributors (i.e. PHG and Giani G) took at my credibility while I was away, citing my original map as proof I dont know the topic - and frankly, I dont know whether I can be bothered contributing anything - after seeing some great articles slowly ruined over the past year (some of which were featured status), I have started to doubt wikipedia's system. Thats why I didnt sign on for so long (only recently to create some articles for Indian comics)." [[79]]

So, it's not at all a one man crusade. I will refrain from comment regarding you for obvious reasons, though I think your attempts at positing yourself as objective ring hollow. But please, do not attempt to discredit respectable users like Windy City Dude in your attempt (twice failed) to make him my sockpuppet. WCD has a track record of contributing for the past year, so your accusation is not very adminlike. Lastly, this is clearly an obsession for PHG. Elonka is merely attempting to maintain the integrity of the system, as Vastu did before her, and as other users here today are attempting to do now. PHG imposes his viewpoint in every topic he is interested in, and over the years, Aldux has enabled him. That is why people leave. Sorry, this just had to be said in response to Aldux.

Devanampriya 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Devanampriya, I know this may come as a disappointment to you, but I don't give all that weight to your opinion to care if my "posing" as objective "sounds hollow" to you... I trust Elonka, and knowing of his editing by far more than you, I think he knows that I've got a mind of mine own. And, BTW, I see you're as civil as always...--Aldux 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidly, Aldux, it doesn't really matter to me because my perspective about you is the same. But please don't attempt to spin everything on behalf of PHG and please, for the sake of your adminship, attempt to be honest with the other reviewers. After all, this is about the integrity of the system, and that's why at least some of us are here today.

Devanampriya 06:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to PHG (whom this thread is actually about)

Dear Administration,

PHG’s incivility as evidenced by his shrill repetition of the words “vandal”, “semi-vandal”, and “quasi-vandal” are just cheap attempts to malign me.

Rebuttal of PHG’s accusations:

1. Discussion page vandalism

What are you talking about? Giani G had to ask you for sources and for your view on the topic so he could pretend like he knew what he is talking about. Me pointing out his admitted lack of knowledge on the topic is not vandalism.

2. Malicious account creation

Umm, what other account did I create PHG? Name one. I challenge you. You already tried to discredit Windy City dude, Pavanapuram, and Vastu, but failed. I did not log in when I made an edit, but that is not the same as “Malicious account creation”. See this is the problem. You are so prone to theater and attacking other users that you make up accusations to undermine their credibility instead of digesting their analysis.

3. Blanking

Addressed above. You insert unnecessary blocks of primary source material and then interpret them as if you were a scholar. That’s called original research.

For the record, my aim has always been accuracy, whether it is on India pages, pages on roman history (i.e. I cleaned up vandalism on the Augustus page), or anywhere else. If something is incorrect, I correct or at least attempt to discuss factuality with the editor (see my numerous and courteous petitions regarding the Sassanid Empire map).

The Case

Fact: PHG routinely writes that the Indo greeks came to liberate India and protect buddhists (see edit war from various dates on Indo Greek article). This is nonsense and has been rejected by scholars. Indo Greeks came to India, much like the germanic tribes came to rome, because of pressures in central asia and the possibility for new lands and wealth.

Fact: PHG routinely attempts to confuse readers by pretending that there is a consensus around his discredited theories (i.e. Chandragupta Maurya page. He claimed Seleucus only ceded land by the Indus, but Ashokan edicts clearly establish Mauryan rule in Afghanistan. So why the mention? To cast doubt on Mauryan territory and to minimize Seleucus’ ignominy).

Fact: PHG likes to include discredited theories like the Chalukyan-Seleucid speculation [[80]], even though he even admits they no longer have scholarly currency. He just likes to mention them because they are about his beloved greeks.

Fact: PHG draws indo greek figures and posts them up on wikipedia [[81]], [[82]]. This is not the work of an objective editor, but a smitten admirer imposing his reveries on others.

Fact: PHG unilaterally decided to stop negotiating with people (whether it was me, Elonka, Vastu, or anyone else) and prematurely end debate.

Fact: PHG claims there is consensus when there is not. He did that with Elonka and with me.

Fact: PHG claims that people are “marginalized” and “isolated” when they are not. Because of his actions people have to call him out for what he is.

Fact: PHG’s own friend Aldux also cautioned him about his incivility and the ridiculous length of his articles on PHG's discussion pages.

I’m not going to bother to continue this war of words since all PHG does heap invective instead of talking with people. Accordingly, he is attempting to change the subject from him to me. So at this stage, I will defer to Elonka and her abundant professionalism (which clearly outstrips both PHG’s and mine) to make the case. But I will say that anyone with a child, such as PHG, should be responsible enough to care for it instead of spending 24 hours a day on wikipedia. How very truly sad.

Devanampriya 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is reading User:Devanampriya's posts anymore, but for those interested by his credentials and track-record, please just refer to the above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV-pushing by User:PHG#Devanampriya, or the communications related to his sock-pupettry cases lower in this page. Please also note that Devanampriya is being actively coached by Elonka [83], [84], [85], and that, understandably, Elonka is now trying to establish more confidential communications by e-mail [86]. I will leave to Administrators to judge about the ethicality of these practices. PHG 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I wrote this,[87] and then retracted it,[88] but now it turns out I was, almost preternaturally, spot on.[89] The key insight is that, if this editor had been on IRC to begin with, this attack would have been seamlessly coordinated to begin with. You'd be left asking, "where did he and she come from?" while your questions would be labeled paranoia.Proabivouac 10:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of assumptions of bad faith. First: I stand by my posts to Devanampriya. I'm not trying to escalate a dispute, I'm trying to de-escalate it. Devanampriya's frustration level is obviously sky-high, and has been multiplied by the fact that he's not all that familiar with Wikipedia procedures. Plus, I'm in agreement with everyone else that a 3-page post to ANI that goes into very obscure content issues, is not helpful. My communications with Devan are of the nature of, "Rudeness isn't helping, you have to be civil," and "ANI is not for content issues. ANI is not for content issues. ANI is not for content issues." (and yes that's a direct quote). To my knowledge, Devan's behavior since my "coaching" has been better on Wikipedia, not worse. Isn't that the point of WP:BITE, to be patient with those who are confused about how to participate here, rather than just goading them into a state of incoherence? I absolutely and categorically deny that I am trying to get Devanampriya to "attack" PHG. If anything, I'm trying to get Devanampriya to focus communications on the article, not the editor. --Elonka 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From Mongols in Jerusalem to Indian nationalism

As I predicted above, the Elonka-PHG dispute seems to be escalating. Instead of discussing content (as they used to), the parties proceed in the direction of throwing dirt at each other. It all started as a debate about Jerusalem and its alleged conquest by the Mongols, then the content dispute was insensitively spilled onto this noticeboard, resulting in a monstrous and sterile thread above. The oddest development was when User:Devanampriya was encouraged to join the fray. As everything that touches upon Indian nationalism, this predictably turned the dispute into a mess which nobody will be able to unravel pretty soon. Devanampriya arranged one of PHG's articles (Indo-Greek Kingdom) to be FARCed; now I see that Elonka is busy defending him on the FARC page from PHG's allegations of misconduct. Guys, please show more respect to each other. All this escalation leads us nowhere. You started with the Franco-Mongol Alliance, and now you are bickering on Indo-Greek Kingdom. I fail to understand how the two subjects coalesce. The brouhaha originated as a legitimate (admittedly a tad too aggressive) assault on a questionable (though notable) theory, now it looks like harassing a prolific and generally helpful editor from every possible direction. Please reconsider. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It serves no purpose to bring this dispute to the administrator noticeboard. The result is going to be the same as last time: Go for mediation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Who should I mediate with? Who do you think I am in dispute with? Please explain. It was Elonka's decision to bring the matter here; and nobody has bothered to archive the thread after half a week. The thread above has grown unusable; I'm just splitting it to reflect a change in the scope of the dispute. There is nothing that prevents us from discussing harassment and wilful escalation of disputes on this noticeboard. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You should enter mediation with the involved parties (viz. PHG, Elonka, Dev etc). With a cursory look at your post, it is discernible that any different point of view is labelled by you as "nationalism", which does not allow us to conclude that you are acting in good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Does not allow us"? Why are you referring to yourself in the plural? Are there multiple people using the account? Seriously, Nick, I don't believe in your impartiality on any subject where Indian nationalism is mentioned. Please recuse yourself from the thread. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alleging interest or conflict of interest is just irrelevant. I have not touched any of these articles, it is only your general attitude which I have been commenting upon, and this is not the first time. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I ever touched any of "these" articles. "Conflict of interest" is very relevant as long as you keep such pages protected in your userspace. One could make a sound argument that this qualifies as an attack page (once again, eh?) --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that even after spending a considerable time with the encyclopedia, the definition of an attack page has not seeped in. I used this page to collect evidence in the case in which I was an "involved" party, and transcluded it there. It still remains transcluded. Please cease with your petty diversionary tactics and revert to mediation. We have nothing more to discuss here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I question the wisdom of keeping a page full of "incriminating" diffs in one's userspace for three months after the relevant arbitration was closed. As for mediation, I am as involved in these articles as you are. If you are prepared to mediate, I will follow suit. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)