What is this? WP:AE#PHG and Légion d'honneur He is obviously gaming the system as deliberately introducing factual errors to Wikipedia so PHG has got indefinitely blocked? It is ridiculous. That is induced by a translation problem but Jehochman has no patience for editors here to check the reliability of the source. Wikipedia is a really wonderful world based on "good faith". --Appletrees (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman did not issue a block, Administrator Coren did. It does seem pretty clear that PHG violated his ArbCom sanctions. He added information to an article,[1] and listed a source (Google translation of source), but the source is both unreliable, and PHG misinterpreted the information from the source. Granted, when challenged, PHG backed down, but he has been on clear notice that he needs to stick to reliable sources, and that he needs to convey the information from those sources in an accurate manner. In this case he did neither. This is not a one-time slip, but just the latest in an ongoing pattern of edits (see the ArbCom case). There have also been repeated incidents since the ArbCom case closed. But this particular one is egregious. During the middle of a contentious AfD, on an article that PHG created, PHG jumped in with an unreliable source, and misinterpreted that source to try and indicate that the subject of the article had won the highest possible French award. If it weren't part of a pattern of problematic edits, we might be able to write it off as an "Oops," but considering PHG's history, I'd say that this is a pretty unambiguous violation. --Elonka 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonaka, you and Jehochman are the the major disputers against PHG, so you're going to say like this. This discussion over the reliability issue of the source is not finished yet but what is this? You've tried to indefinitely block him and the last block of him was result of your framing? I've seen in absurd things too much today.--Appletrees (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Appletrees, but you have been misinformed. There have unfortunately been some "pot-stirrers" in this AfD who have been inserting false information. To be accurate: It is true that I have definitely been involved in a dispute with PHG for the last several months. For details, see my Statement at the ArbCom case. Jehochman, however, is not a key involved party in the dispute. He hasn't participated on any of the article talkpages, nor, to my knowledge, has he even edited any of the same articles as PHG. If I were to name someone else as "major disputers" with PHG, I would list names such as Aramgar, KafkaLiz, Shell Kinney, Adam Bishop, Ealdgyth, JohnK, and others. Jehochman wouldn't even make the top 10, and it was just a false accusation that he was ever accused of being a major disputer here. Further, it doesn't really matter whether someone "tries" to get someone blocked, as long as their evidence is presented with proper proof and in good faith. Any block is always issued by an uninvolved administrator, and I assure you that admins do not make these blocks lightly, because they know that if they do, the community will turn on them very rapidly, and possibly demand their resignation. I would also point out that Coren is only the most recent admin to issue a block, and that PHG has been blocked multiple times before, including by FT2, an active arbitrator, and AGK, an arbitration clerk. PHG hasn't been "framed", he's been given multiple warnings, but he has refused to heed them. --Elonka 23:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you either misunderstood my comment or don't accept the simple fact. Who nominated this article for deletion? That is the same Jehochman who disappeared here in the middle of discussion to report PHG on AE? I don't object to every blocks issued by admins under the probation. What I contest to is this block and your last request for blocking him. The block was wrongly addressed by you and then AGK believed you, admin in the same shoes. If his block is justifiable, AGK would not lift it even if he said that is "time served". I saw you complaints several times on Thatcher's talk page when I visited him for other matters. Therefore, there is no misinformation in my mind. This experiences make me convince that every admins should be evaluated for qualification by editors per every year. --Appletrees (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In haste, Appletrees, this from gouv.fr shows that PHG's unofficial (?) archive has official sanction, as can be told from the page numbers when WP:AGF is applied. That means that AT MINIMUM Polak received the Chevalier of the lesser medal and was nominated for the Officier, officially. There is probably a better analysis available to someone at convenience: I'm too busy changing diapers and writing unblock defenses at PHG's talk. If we were mistaken about Polak receiving the Officier, we were under immense pressure. Again, if anyone has any questions about other statements made on this page, ---> John J. Bulten (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As my closing argument in favor of retention (really!), please note that the harm already done to WP consequent upon this AFD and its nominator's report today to WP:AE has now far exceeded all the potential harm that might have arisen out of our discussions about whether Polak got the ninth-rate or the tenth-rate medal. I hope our Francophone returns. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I unblocked (and also placed the AE report on hold prior to seeing the block) is because, as I argued to Coren, as admins, we have to follow our own rules. So long as the AfD remains open, it can close either way. If it closes favourably to PHG (which may be remote, I'm not sure), then it would have made no sense to have him blocked in the meantime, unable to participate in this discussion. Had the block taken place after this AfD was closed in a manner showing there was gaming the rules and fabrications, I would, of course, have no objections. Thx. El_C 00:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were it not for the timing, I would have opposed the unblock because I do not beleive PHG's behavior depends on Christian Polak's notability. Simply put: at best, PHG has used a source he did not properly understand in order to make an unsupportable claim. If that had been an isolated incident, I would have made nothing of it— but as it is, he was found by the Arbitration Committee to have habitually misrepresented sources, and he was strongly admonished not to do this again. Given that he has been brought again in front of the AC for that same problematic behavior, and that he nonetheless persists, yet another obvious "error" in comprehension was strictly unacceptable.

As it is, the most good faith we can stretch to cover PHG's citation practices is that he is extraordinarily careless in selecting and citing sources, so much so that any putative value he introduces to the encyclopedia is canceled by the fact that every single assertion he writes needs to be double and triple checked by other editors.

I don't beleive PHG has a future as a contributor on Wikipedia unless he is strictly and competently guided, and unless and until he agrees to mentorship. — Coren ^(talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't read the ArbComm decision about PHG as Coren has represented it. It does not state that PHG has "habitually misrepresented sources." The claim that everything he does must be "double checked and triple checked" is not something that came from ArbComm, and, indeed, that certain editors seem to believe this is, in my view, the major cause of the present problem. There is a reason for WP:AGF and we trust the accumulated work of editors to find errors in sourcing. I frequently find that sources cited in articles aren't available to me, they may be on sites that require payment, and very substantial payment. But someone else will be at a library, or have access rights, and it will be easy. Later. Creating validated articles is a process, it takes time, and articles frequently start with thin sourcing and, indeed, with errors. Is it being claimed that editors may not make "errors in comprehension"? We have an article under the gun in AfD, and the author of the article finds what looks to him like a Legion of Honor award, based on some assumptions about the meaning of a Japanese reference, so he reports it. Instead it was the Order of Merit, apparently. Experts make mistakes like that, and that is one reason why we have editors. AGF is policy, ArbComm specifically confirmed a continuing assumption of good faith for PHG, so why this intense suspicion? In the end, ArbComm verified that, in certain areas, "several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion." The FoF earlier mentioned "numerous," but that wasn't actually confirmed, apparently, and at least some of the claims made against PHG were petty. In any case, we have lots of editors who make mistakes. We don't block them. We fix the mistakes.--Abd (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think El C makes a reasonable point. PHG has been adding unverifiable information to Wikipedia for many months. A few more days of suffering would not make a material difference. However, at some point we do need to say, "enough". Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG might be restricted from adding less-than-crystal-clear citations under a strict and binding mentorship setup, sure. But to block him now while discussion about this is ongoing, comes across as punitive. There is no rush. El_C 03:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EL C, in your edit summary you said, "the contested citations have already been added *many days ago* — to block PHG now while discussion about all this is ongoing, comes across as punitive."[2] Sorry, but no, that is not accurate. The main citation that is being disputed, and caused Jehochman to post at WP:AE, is about the Legion of Honor award and its related source, which PHG added to the article earlier today.[3] The reason that a block was appropriate, is because the longer that PHG is unblocked, the more time that he has to add other controversial information and citations to the article, as well as biased information to other articles. Granted, I am not an uninvolved party here, but I still feel that my motives here are good ones. I am trying to protect Wikipedia, to restrict the flow of bad information into the project, and to prevent the hours of wasted time that PHG is causing to other editors. That is why I feel that PHG should be blocked. Not to "punish" him, but to stop the disruption and let everyone else get back to more constructive activities. --Elonka 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, an arbitrator suggested that your interventions with PHG were not helpful. How about just going back to more constructive activities? --Abd (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might have confused the timing somewhat, but Elonka, in almost the same breath, claims that she is "not an uninvolved party here" yet wishes that I not use administrative powers here because I was involved in a dispute with her in the past. She is also quick to volunteer me to desysop, with a an outright flawed interpretation of the Wheel War policy. Oh well. El_C 04:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PHG

Please find my comment on my Talk Page: User_talk:PHG#Comment_by_PHG. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]