User:Hans Adler/Draft

Here I am collecting evidence that I may introduce into the on-going Muhammad images case before Arbcom.

From Talk:Muhammad/images

 * Johnbod 15:20, 29 November 2011: "Too off-topic for a biography. Would we illustrate Jesus with a similar inscription?" (moi)
 * Tivanir2 15:23, 29 November 2011: "Not sure if that would be considered completely relevant IMO. While he was the founder of the religion he also did other things. In the Islam article it would make sufficient sense, but unless the image was a mosque of the time I don't know if it would make sense, as this isn't the article for the Quran or the religion." (moi)
 * RobertMfromLI 23:44, 29 November 2011: "While I agree [...] that there are differences between Islam and Christianity, I'd posit [...] that such isn't relevant to this article, since this article is not the article on Islam or Christianity - it's a biography."
 * Alanscottwalker 22:14, 30 November 2011: "Sorry. This 'cultural balance' standard is imo, untenable, it's not based in any policy, it's grossly imprecise, it mixes terms with a need for very specialized expertise in every reader and editor, it's possibly entirely wrong, it is extremely ad hoc, and I can't imagine it working either here or anywhere else on the project."
 * Johnbod 22:52, 30 November 2011: "But this is a BIOGRAPHY, not a survey of Islam!"
 * Alanscottwalker 23:36, 30 November 2011: "So, even assuming that cultural balance has been achieved on those other articles (a big assumption), you posit that it happened organically and was not by prior agreement. Is that the way forward?" (I find it hard to AGF this comment.)
 * FormerIP 21:04, 1 December 2011: Appeal to an invisible majority. Objection to compromise on the grounds that something "look[s] like censorship". Objection to moving first occurrence down.
 * FormerIP 00:25, 2 December 2011: "It would be good to work towards an RfC in which mention of either religious sensitivities or WP:NOTCENSORED could be banished."
 * FormerIP 01:45, 2 December 2011: "That's one of the arguments that hasn't had room to breathe." IDHT as a technique for enforcing the NOTCENSORED reading that religious sensitivities must not be considered.
 * FormerIP 02:41, 2 December 2011: "I do not think a community-wide discussion involving countless editors overall which, though not perfectly coherent, came down with a clear consensus against removing images, can be overridden with" -- what does this refer to???
 * Alanscottwalker 03:09, 2 December 2011: "Rare images of the man's life belong in his biography."
 * Tarc 18:36, 2 December 2011: "We're not engaging in 'philosophical combat' here; what we are doing is ensuring that 'Islam's philosophical position' as you put it is not a possible or potential consideration when making editorial decision here. Their views are irrelevant."
 * FormerIP 19:42, 2 December 2011: "'more profoundly word-based than any other of the major religions'...isn't this an argument for removing all images from the article?" -- All-or-nothing argument.
 * Tarc 20:52, 2 December 2011: "This is a peculiar twisting of NPOV that you two have begun to twist [...] that a neutral presentation of Muhammad in the Wikipedia somehow must acknowledge Muslim sensitivities regarding his face and overall appearance. [...] You position is utterly indefensible, it'd be like demanding we write out 'G-d' instead of 'God' in an article on Judaism."
 * Tarc 13:29, 3 December 2011: "I am trying to untangle the notion that to discuss the deference/offense, one does not actually have to be deferential."
 * FormerIP 21:21, 3 December 2011: "NPOV doesn't extend to giving satisfaction to religious viewpoints. [...]"
 * FormerIP 01:33, 4 December 2011: "Wikipedia is not censored, and can be distinguished in this respect from many of the sources it is based on. There is clear consensus, with regard to this specific issue, that Wikipedia should not practice censorship. To my mind, that isn't an invitation for us to moderate our censorship, but to practice none whatsoever. So, there is no validity to an approach that attempts to ascertain the average level of censorship in sources and then try to force that on Wikipedia as a standard to be followed. It would be a terrible mistake to think of this as an application of NPOV. NPOV attempts to ensure that our content is unbiased, not that our behaviour as editors should conform to an average standard. It follows from this that any attempt to base the image content of an article on the image content of sources which are routinely censored goes against WP policy unless those sources which are censored are excluded from the survey."
 * FormerIP 02:37, 4 December 2011: "No, because in this case it is completely uncontroversial to state that some sources are censored (i.e. it is nothing to do with 'in his own mind'). These sources are of no relevance in determining how information in Wikipedia should be presented."
 * FormerIP 03:29, 4 December 2011: "But we shouldn't be looking at censored sources as a model."
 * Alanscottwalker 13:33, 4 December 2011: This comment suggests the user is motivated by the cartoons affair.
 * Alanscottwalker 16:16, 4 December 2011: "And I will revert."
 * Tarc 20:41, 4 December 2011: "That is not how image usage has EVER worked on this project and it is not something that is going to be blindly adopted now just because you and Ludwigs are STILL harping about 'offense to Muslim'." Also, Tarc tries to take dispute between Eraserhead1/Ludwigs2 and Alanscottwalker from the latter's talk page to image talk page.
 * Amatulić 19:23, 5 December 2011: "I don't particularly like having no images whatsoever in the section Muhammad's early life. I also don't want images of significant events removed (examples being the revelation from Gabriel or the black stone episode), regardless of whether their inclusion results in someone perceiving "imbalance" in representation of sources or time periods. If depictions of those events have representation mostly from a certain period or culture, so be it; I am skeptical of the arguments that make an NPOV issue of this."
 * Tarc 21:07, 5 December 2011: "Well, 'avoid' [compromise] isn't the word I'd choose; 'decline' or 'reject' would be better. So yes, a proposed compromise can be rejected, your calling for it to be accepted simply because of the volumes of words that one side has used is a bit of a ridiculous assertion." -- Inappropriate rhetoric of authority, rejection of any compromise.
 * Tarc 01:55, 6 December 2011: "That is the problem from the outset of this, that there are some, i.e. Ludwigs, who have made blatantly outlandish proposals, and then demand 'compromise', which just shifts the goalposts from the the realm of 'absolutely out of the question' to 'not very likely'."
 * Tarc 20:12, 6 December 2011: "What part of 'no' did you find confusing? We do have a strong consensus that is ignored by a couple of loudmouths, is all."
 * Resolute 00:16, 8 December 2011: "Frankly, my proposal was not meant for the likes of Ludwigs. The easiest, and only, way forward is to remove him from the equasion. I've seen enough of his style to know that he starts off with an extreme position, sets others against him, then moves ever so slightly toward the middle and tries to paint his opponents as unreasonable."
 * Amatulić 01:34, 6 December 2011: "(1) offending people should never be a consideration when building encyclopedic content"
 * Tarc 01:55, 6 December 2011: "I'm not sitting through yet another tiring round of 'we should only offend well-established religious and cultural mores where there's a clear encyclopedic advantage in doing so' bullshit. If that is how this is going to, once again, be kicked off, then this is dead on arrival."
 * Amatulić 04:29, 6 December 2011: "It's simply your opinion that my point 1 wrong. As an analogy, scientists don't consider religious arguments when reaching conclusions via the scientific method. Neither should a secular project consider religious offense when creating encyclopedic content. Consensus is abundantly clear on that point."
 * Tarc 14:30, 6 December 2011: "I was wondering when you were going to stoop down to the 'anti-intellectual/academic' angle, what took you so long?"
 * Tarc 04:31, 6 December 2011: "Point 1 is the heart of your tendentiousness, honestly; the refusal to accept that this is an accepted reality of thi removed s project. Also, noone has to work with you if you persist in just proposing the same things that have already been soundly rejected. [...] dickishness".
 * Tarc 13:33, 7 December 2011: "Obviously, both of you are full of it, concocting an extra provision for this article that exist in no other article is not going to fly."
 * Tarc 23:26, 7 December 2011: "The more appropriate question to pose is "why is this article subjected to a higher and more exacting level of scrutiny than the others?", to which the obvious answer is that "only Islam has a bee in its bonnet about images of its prophet". This is the underlying motivation to shed images from this article; I can give praise to Ludwigs for at least admitting that offense is a motivating factor, something that you cannot. Their faith dictates to them how they depict their prophet. We are under no such restriction or obligation. Surely there are things that adherents of other faiths find objectionable in their respective articles, and we would not bow to their demands, either."
 * Tarc 02:48, 8 December 2011: "It is quite in line with NPOV. You're stuck in this intellectually devoid argument of "Muslims don't use pictures, so if we use pictures ,that isn't neutral." You're wrong. You have been told that you're wrong many times on this angle, and been shown and explained why you are wrong, yet you persist in the same claim. Over and over and over."
 * Tarc 20:25, 8 December 2011: "We're using them because a consensus of editors have determined that they are not incidental, not superfluous, are germane to the topic, assist the reader in understanding the subject matter, and they satisfy WP:NFCC. Your wish to add another criteria. We get that. That proposal isn't exactly setting the project on fire, your fallacious argumentum ad Jimboem notwithstanding."
 * Tarc 20:44, 7 December 2011: "Regarding the "16 archives" bit, I'd say about 15.5 of that is the garden variety "Remove images of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH)" nonsense by SPAs and one-off IP editors, i.e. nothing that we'd pay the slightest bit of attention to or in any way see as a valued contribution to the project."
 * Tarc 21:18, 7 December 2011: "As far as I am concerned, their opinions don't count for squat. Not just because their are IP editors, but because they come here not for the purposes of building an encyclopedia, but rather to demand that we make this page adhere to their religious beliefs. And the demands are not "can you remove some images" or "can you remove this image" or "can we move this image to another section"; they are invariably "remove ALL images NOW, they OFFEND me". That type of IP editor does not count for a damn thing in terms of discussing this topic. None."
 * Tarc 15:37, 9 December 2011: "What you are seeking is ultimately a novel approach to NPOV interpretation, which requires religious precepts to be acknowledged when writing an article connected to that religion. In other words, the POV held by some Muslims that prohibits Muhammad's face being shown must be reflected in how many images of such we can use in this article. This is a fundamental policy shift that'd at the very least necessitate wider community input, i.e. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. You can't mediate your way into a policy change."
 * Tarc 01:11, 10 December 2011: "That is, unequivocally, bullshit; a standard for images that you are trying to apply to this article and no other, for no other reason than the "some Muslims don't like it". I find it hard to believe that in yet another thread...one calling for mediation, no less...that the same handful of anti-image activists are trotting out the same talking points that have tried and tried and tried and failed to carry the day over the last, what, 2 months now? This is beyond tendentious."
 * Tarc 02:23, 10 December 2011: "This last post of yours is proof positive that your approach to this article is done in EXTREME bad faith, as you you desperately try to grasp onto whatever possible tool available to get your way. This is like watching a bad political ideologue who has already made up his mind on a position try prop up the flimsy evidence to support what has already been decided"
 * FormerIP 23:38, 10 December 2011: "There is a community consensus, which could hardly be any clearer, that the Mohammed article is not in any way exempt from NOTCENSORED. That isn't a consensus simply against removing all images that someone might find offensive. It is also a consensus against any proposal that seeks to minimise the risk of the article causing offence. Moreover, changes to the images in the article should only be undertaken on the basis of uncontroversial interpretations of existing policy, not on the basis of novel rationales which are really just proxies for censorship."
 * Talk:Muhammad/images: Pure disruption tactic.
 * Noformation 02:11, 18 December 2011: "Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and we are not censored. Policy specifically prohibits considering religious beliefs when deciding content."

General observations

 * Editors play with the ambiguity of the word "censorship". Similar to "terrorism" in other contexts, it is used vaguely and broadly when determining what falls under the definition, and narrowly when discussing whether it is allowed.
 * Attempts to minimise illustrations that are not depictions of Muhammad. (moi)
 * Unfair prevention of consensus change: Some militant anti-censors insist that the lack of consensus is a temporary local phenomenon. Others insist that taking the discussion elsewhere is forum shopping. Clear statements by the WMF and by Jimbo are ignored.
 * Black and white thinking. False dichotomies, slippery slope fallacy.

Tarc
edit counter

Wikipedia's consensus-finding process relies on a minimum level of intelligence (which the vast majority of or editors have, so is not really a problem) and on editors using it. Wikipedia has no effective process whatsoever to enforce that editors engage in intelligent discussion where appropriate, and Tarc is shamelessly exploiting this loophole to a bizarre degree.

Analysis of Tarc's edits
Tarc got involved in the present dispute after 27 hours and 28 posts by 10 editors. Somewhere between 30% and 50% of his edits since then have been contributions to the dispute, and most of these have exhibited a serious battleground mindset and have contributed substantially to the the escalation. The main locus was Talk:Muhammad/images, but he was also involved in related skirmishes at User talk:Tarc, WP:WQA, and later also WP:ANI, WT:NOT, User talk:Jimbo Wales and Arbcom. The overall quality of Tarc's contributions appears to have been relatively constant. As the first contributions have no doubt had most influence on the structure of the battleground, I will restrict the analysis to his edits in October. I have classified problematic and borderline problematic behaviour as follows.


 * Using ad hominem techniques (21/46 edits):
 * Accusing an opponent of bad faith [B] (1, 2, 28, 33, 35, 40)
 * Accusing an opponent of bias or inappropriate political correctness [P] (4, 35)
 * Authoritarian posturing and talking down to an opponent [A] (4, 6, 16, 22, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 43, 46)
 * Threatening an opponent with consequences for alleged disruptive behaviour [T] (6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 29)
 * Otherwise unclassifiable personal attack [W] (7, 9, 15, 46)
 * Other (insisting that an argument must be dismissed because the same person has earlier argued unsuccessfully in the same direction with different arguments) [D] (2)


 * Insisting on unconstructive interpretations of social interactions (other than ad hominem arguments) (17/46 edits):
 * Misrepresenting another editor, typically by quoting out of context or rephrasing with hyperbole to make their position appear extremist, or by making false statements about talk page history [M] (5, 7, 12, 13, 19, 28, 39, 41)
 * Claiming that there is a consensus which is sufficiently strong that arguing against it is disruptive [C] (6, 10, 16, 19, 23, 39, 41, 43)
 * Drawing a false analogy [G] (6, 7, 16, 18, 26, 28, 34, 41)
 * Pointing to vague and unverifiable claims of having given convincing arguments in the past as a substitute for rational arguments [Y] (10, 17)


 * Dogmatically stating weird interpretations or applications of policy, with no serious attempt at justification (12/46 edits):
 * Insisting (sometimes implicitly) that all arguments related to religious feelings are a priori inadmissible [Z] (13, 27)
 * Insisting that the foundation resolution does not apply to Muhammad images in the first place [R] (1, 2, 8, 23, 29, 40, 43, 45)
 * Otherwise expressing a fundamentalist view on policy [F] (27, 29, 31, 35)


 * Unreasonably understating the case for image removal (7/46 edits):
 * Claiming that only a few extremists are offended; or assuming implicitly that the discussion is really about the campaign of some extremists to rid Wikipedia of Muhammad images rather than about finding the best editorial decision about the matter, as we usually do when an area of Wikipedia comes under public scrutiny [X] (31, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43)


 * Unreasonably overstating the case for image inclusion (5/46 edits):
 * Insisting generally and without explanation that the images have encyclopedic value for the article (implying that they have enough value to override other concerns) [V] (6, 31, 39)
 * Insisting without further explanation that this biography should have anthropomorphic images because other Wikipedia biographies also have such pictures [N] (11 to some extent, 26, 28)


 * 1) 21 Oct 17:08 Talk:Muhammad/images  "This entire proposal simply reeks of bad-faith. Ludwigs, who do you think you're trying to kid here, twisting a foundation resolution to serve your own bias? [...] There is no part of that resolution that is applicable here." - [B][R]
 * 2) 21 Oct 17:56 Talk:Muhammad/images  "There is no good-faith explanation for why someone would take something the foundation directed primarily at sexual images and try to use it to prop up their failed position of image removal here. You have made such cases in the past that WP:NOTCENSORED should not protect the images in this article, you saw this foundation proposal and thought it would prop up said arguments. Clear enough for you?" - [B][D][R]
 * 3) 21 Oct 17:56 User talk:Tarc  Tarc's response to Ludwigs2's complaint about [B] was "BAWW".
 * 4) 21 Oct 18:43 Talk:Muhammad/images  "You just explained your bias quite clearly; unbridled political correctness. Let me make this quite clear; the images will not be removed from this article. Period. Full stop." [A][P]
 * 5) 21 Oct 19:57 User talk:Tarc  Tarc's response to Amatulic's NPA warning: "Ludwigs can go pound sand for all I care, to hell with thin skin and wounded sensitivies. If he has the gall to say "I do not believe that the project should insult or offend anyone or anything", then labeling said opinion as being that of political correctness is not a personal attack." [M]
 * 6) 21 Oct 20:04 Talk:Muhammad/images  "What you have done here, and continue to do, is bring up an old, dead tired, suggestion that has been rejected again and again and again and again by an overwhelming consensus of editors. Much the same as some wish the CRU hacking case to be called 'Climategate' or for Barack Obama's bio to note the skepticism of birthers over his birth certificate...tired, repetitive, dead-horse arguments eventually get flagged as tendentious and the pusher of such winds up with a good ol bommerang to the face." [A][C][G][T] "I note over on the pregnancy article you are engaging in the exact same behavior as you are here, so I kindly suggest the the problem lies in your own behavior, and not with any of your perceived opponents." [W] "[...] consensus has determined that the encyclopedic value of images of Muhammad override any vanishingly small minority of religious conservatives that do not like to see such images." [C][V]
 * 7) 22 Oct 04:41 Talk:Muhammad/images  "Ludwigs, if you intend to make a declaration that you will war and battle and emo-rage until you get your way, I will point you to Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, where a slew of similarly stubborn-headed individuals decided to make a (in their estimation) noble last stand against the Hordes only to find themselves in a Tenneyson poem. [...] " [G][M][T] "The images are in this article because at various points in history, people have painted pictures of the subject matter, and it would be rather silly to have a biography of a person without them." [N] "Your suggestion that the images are places in the article with the express purposes of causing offense to a particular subset of potential readers is, quite frankly, an extremity retarded assertion to make." [W]
 * 8) 22 Oct 12:15 Talk:Muhammad/images  "It has never been discussed here because it is not applicable." [R] (Ludwigs2's earlier activity was restricted to 10 days / 1 section in March.) "As for 'just ignoring', what usually happens when that is attempted when dealing with a tendentious editor, is that the editor will declare 'well, since no one opposes it, I will just go ahead and do it'. The only way to put an end to something like this is a topic ban, so if this is going to go anywhere it should be to WP:ANI to consider such a measure. Enough is enough. And Ludwigs, please don't bother with WQA, we all know how that is going to go." [T]
 * 9) 22 Oct 13:43 Talk:Muhammad/images  "Yay, once again another uninformed voice weighs in with a "YOU'RE KEEPING IMAGES HERE ON PURPOSE TO OFFEND" broadside, with no basis in reality." [W] "They are not 'purely ornamental', they are illustrative of the subject." Picking out a minor instance of hyperbole in what I said, and failing to respond to the substance.
 * 10) 22 Oct 16:59 WP:WQA  "I punctured Ludwigs' WP:OWN argument quite handily, and the rest is just prevarication from the matter at hand, which is that Ludwigs brings up a perennial (it is even noted at WP:PERENNIAL) topic that has been easily and overwhelmingly rejected in past discussions. There's a line where consensus can change ends and dead horses begin, and this guy has sailed right over it." [C][Y] Here, Ludwigs seems to relish the idea of a heated bit of rhetoric with an edit summary of r to Tarc - ok, no gloves. I can do that. (This is hypocritical, as Ludwigs2's edit summary was a reaction to the following sequence of Tarc's edit summaries directed at Ludwigs2: "bullshit", "bad-faith is clear", "", "bam!")
 * 11) 22 Oct 17:06 Talk:Muhammad/images  "'Illustrative of the subject' means just that; we have a picture, we tend to like pictures in Wikipedia articles when licensing allows them to be used." ([N])
 * 12) 22 Oct 18:51 WP:WQA  "You actually did follow through with that claim numerous times, in things said to me and to others, e.g. your "competence" line cited above, the bit about "parrots" to me in Muhammad/images, among others." [M] (Also hypocritical. The context of Ludwigs2's statements was as follows: "Consider the following two actions: * Doing something that offends people because it is necessary to do it to give a complete and accurate description of a topic. * Doing something that offends people because it is pretty/fun/cute. If you do not see the difference between these two actions, then I have no choice except to question your competence as an editor."  // "Every time someone says the images are "illustrative of the subject", I ask them to explain how they are illustrative of anything. No one ever bothers to answer. [...] You can continue to spout out 'illustrative of the subject', 'illustrative of the subject', 'illustrative of the subject' like badly-trained parrots, [...]")
 * 13) 22 Oct 18:56 Talk:Muhammad/images  "And now you've devolved to a 'images are just decorative' position? " [M] "Let me ask this; do you have a non-religious-based argument against the images in this article?" [Z]
 * 14) 22 Oct 20:01 Talk:Muhammad/images  Tarc's 14th edit related to the dispute, and the first one that I would consider constructive.
 * 15) 22 Oct 20:25 Talk:Muhammad/images  "stop wasting time with bad arguments, please" [W]
 * 16) 23 Oct 21:52 Talk:Muhammad/images  "As I said at the beginning, images will not be removed from this article. before you go BAWWWing about WP:OWN again, no, it is not that, but rather a simple matter of acknowledging reality." [A] "This is no different than declaring that the CRU hacking case will never be renamed 'Climategate', or that there will never bee a line in Barack Obama that says 'presumably born in Hawaii'." [G] "Consensus has been reached that the images will remain, and it is about time that you accept that you are the minority that is on the outside looking in." [C] "Declaring that you will repeatedly push in the face of consensus will invariably bring sanctions down on your head." [T]
 * 17) 23 Oct 23:03 Talk:Muhammad/images  "I have already destroyed your WP:OWN argument, Ludwigs, several times now. Do I need to do it again?" [Y] "If within the next 6 months of this RfC closure you broach the subject again, I will file a motion in the appropriate venue to topic-ban you from this and related articles." [T]
 * 18) 24 Oct 03:07 User talk:Tarc  "What inscription would you like on your wiki-epitaph once they run you out on a rail? Seriously bro, I haven't seen this steep of a flameout since " [G][T]
 * 19) 24 Oct 03:45 Arbitration/Requests/Case  "We have a lone, disgruntled user who does not accept the consensus reached at the respective article pages." [C][M] "If this case is taken, then I'd suggest a motion or whatever to strip (pun unintended) this down to only dealing with the pregnancy issue and not the Muhammad images one, though Ludwig's tendentious, battleground behavior in both should be subject to review." (hypocritical, given Tarc's own behaviour)
 * 20) 25 Oct 01:26 Talk:Muhammad/images  In response to "Can someone please point me to an earlier discussion explaining the educational value of the images, or, if possible, give me a brief summary here?": "I don't really see why an explanation is necessary, as "this is an article on Muhammad" and "these are images of Muhammad" are two very simple concepts."
 * 21) 25 Oct 04:06 Talk:Muhammad/images  In response to "I'm looking for a discussion about images of Muhammad in the article and can't find one. Was that a deliberate editorial choice, or hasn't it been addressed yet?": "Your questions are bordering on the pedantic, honestly. You are trying to set up some sort of extra-special litmus test, above and beyond any other article in the project, to justify image inclusion. The only reason for such a litmus test is because of outside agitation by religious conservatives. That is not a valid criteria to make editorial decisions in the Wikipedia." Later removed.
 * 22) 25 Oct 04:10 Talk:Muhammad/images  "Your concerns are not concerns that we take into account when editing this Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how much clearer this point can be made to you. [A]" "Ludwigs' pontification is equally meritless, there is no "turning to the Muslim community" and there never will be." [A]
 * 23) 25 Oct 12:20 Talk:Muhammad/images  "But that brings us back to the kerfuffle that started this whole thing; Ludwigs taking that foundation proposal and unreasonably stretching it to cover the situation in this article." [R] "That point of view has not garnered much, if any, support." [C]
 * 24) 25 Oct 14:20 Talk:Muhammad/images  (cryptic interjection)
 * 25) 25 Oct 14:24 Talk:Muhammad/images  "Well goody for you, but it simply isn't going to happen. This project does not make editorial decisions based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious beliefs. There is no wiggle room here. "
 * 26) 25 Oct 17:03 Talk:Muhammad/images  Long, mostly constructive comment with edit summary "3-point Ludwigs rebuttal". [G][N]
 * 27) 27 Oct 19:10 Talk:Muhammad/images  "Religious fundamentalism is never going to be a concern to take into account when making editorial decisions in this project." [F][Z]
 * 28) 27 Oct 22:52 Talk:Muhammad/images  "What your objections are based on is a remix of the logically fallacious won't somebody please think of the children? argument, but with Muslims subbed in for children." [G][M] "You don't get to subject the images of this article to a litmus test that most other articles' images don't have to deal with." [A][N] "You don't get to hold them up because of your personally-held beliefs." [A][B] (appears to claim that Ludwigs2 is secretly a Muslim)
 * 29) 28 Oct 13:22 Talk:Muhammad/images  "The claim that 'NPOV, TPG, a Foundation resolution, and even (at a pinch) IAR on my side' is not remotely within the realm of reality." [A][R] "No one but you really buys the stretching of the Foundation resolution to cover this topic, there are no violations of talk-page guidelines when discussing something that is relevant to the article, it would actually be a violation of NPOV to remove the images, as we would be showing an imbalanced favoritism of a religious minority point of view." [F][R] "You can either stop yourself from attacking other editors in this fashion, or we can go somewhere where a stoppage will be forced upon you. Your choice." [A][T] 29
 * 30) 28 Oct 16:06 Talk:Muhammad/images  Actually adresses as weak point in Ludwigs2's argument somewhat reasonably.
 * 31) 28 Oct 16:10 Talk:Muhammad/images  "I defend the images because they are not trivial and are necessary to the article." [V] "You have no valid case to make in the area, never have and never will." [A] "'We do not consider offense' is the crux of the matter here." [F] "Religious extremism does not dictate WIkipedia editorial decisions." [X]
 * 32) 28 Oct 20:01 Talk:Muhammad/images  (constructive comment)
 * 33) 29 Oct 00:23 Talk:Muhammad/images  "So this is the game plan now? Make a demand so outrageous at the outset (remove the images to appease some conservative religious sensitivities), then after awhile offer a 'compromise' (just picture the air-quotes in your mind when reading that) that gets you most of what you want? The insinuation that those who are now unwilling to meet your faux-compromise are now the obstinate/stubborn ones was a nice touch, btw." [B]
 * 34) 29 Oct 03:11 Talk:Muhammad/images  Comparison to the Virgin Killer case. [G] Also note the edi summary: "look at the bright side; at least we don't have a naked picture of Muhammad with broken glass obscuring his penis".
 * 35) 29 Oct 16:08 Talk:Muhammad/images  "Once again, a fraudulent argument." [B] "We do not dip and bow to every single thing every single person may find objectionable." [X] "This is political correctness run amok." [P] "For the umpteenth time, that some people do not like images of Muhammad to be displayed is not a concern will will take when editing this page." [A][F]
 * 36) 29 Oct 18:35 Talk:Muhammad/images  "You have no right to impose your views on the rest of us, any more than those Muslims who oppose images have a right to impose their views upon the Wikipedia." [A][X] "You can ignore me all you like with cutsey '...', but I will hammer this simple fact home as often as you need it." [A]
 * 37) 29 Oct 18:44 Talk:Muhammad/images  " ' RfC - Should the Wikipedia acquiesce to the demands of religious fundamentalism and their apologists, removing all images of Muhammad from the main article? Or should it ignore external advocacy and propaganda pushes, to provide information to the world freely and uncensored?'" Inflammatory false dichotomy. Later struck.
 * 38) 29 Oct 18:55 Talk:Muhammad/images  Creates a new section "Is there even legitimate, outside opposition to images here?" The question which Tarc asks there may well be the key to his numerous strange contributions.
 * 39) "You haven't said much worth responding to lately either, just the same broken record of "superfluous images that cause offense must be removed", even though they aren't superfluous and the largely invented offended parties are negligible." [M][V][X] "Most everyone has simply stopped engaging you, you're lucky that Robert has the patience of a saint." [C]
 * 40) 30 Oct 02:23 Talk:Muhammad/images  "Anthony, THE FOUNDATION RESOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS' NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO SHOW IMAGES OF THEIR PROPHET. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. I do hate to yell, but I also hate to see the same falsehoods spread again and again and again on this issue. You and ludwins are not going to be allowed to hide behind an unconnected WMF memo on this." [B][R] Also note the edit summary: "stop spreading falsehoods, anthony"
 * 41) 30 Oct 02:46 Talk:Muhammad/images  Long comment with edit summary "probably the longest passage I have ever written in my time here". [C][G][M][X]
 * 42) 30 Oct 16:02 Talk:Muhammad/images  "The problem for you though is that it simply isn't a notable of significant controversy. Again, a gaggle of wiki-editors advocating for something they feel is controversial doesn't actually make it so. There is no outside preuure, no significant oppoition to images in this article. Your "only use a controversial image..." line has no applicability to this article." [X]
 * 43) 30 Oct 19:23 Talk:Muhammad/images  (As a comment on: "Robert: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Nothing you said above is meaningful in this context except as a determined effort to poison the well.") "In other words, neener neener? How charming." "[...] but you don't get to advocate on behalf of a religious minority, and your continued, deliberate falsehoods stated about the WMF resolution's applicability to this issue here will continue to be challenged for as long as you choose to make them." [A][R][X] "The reality of the situation is that a change has been suggested, several times, and has been rejected each time." [C]
 * 44) 30 Oct 20:55 Talk:Muhammad/images  Comment on proposed image-by-image analysis.
 * 45) 30 Oct 23:32 Talk:Muhammad/images  "'Least astonishment' does not have the slightest applicability to this article. A reader with even average common sense who clicks on the article for Muhammad will expect to be presented with images thereof." [R]
 * 46) 31 Oct 01:47 Talk:Muhammad/images  (In response to "Tarc, your contributions to this discussion seem to get more and more insulting over time. As far as I can tell, you're saying that any Sunni coming to this article does not have 'average common sense'.") "If you feel insulted, then you should work on some skin-thickening exercises. This is EN.wiki. Not Middle.East.wiki. Not Iranian.wiki. A reader reading an article in the English Wikipedia, which like it or not presents topics in a Western-centric point-of-view, should not be astonished to see an image of Muhammad in the Muhammad article." [W] "Ludwigs has no leg to stand on on this tangent, and neither do you." [A]

November

 * 02 Nov 04:24 Talk:Muhammad/images "no, but what is possibly peculiar is that there have been no IP or SPA posts in weeks."
 * 02 Nov 15:34 Talk:Muhammad/images "what if there were no more what-if? questions?"
 * 02 Nov 18:35 Talk:Muhammad/images "not applicable"
 * 02 Nov 21:52 Talk:Muhammad/images "Ludwigs, put up or shut up"
 * 02 Nov 23:55 Talk:Muhammad/images "the last straw"
 * 02 Nov 23:56 Talk:Muhammad/images "stray fragment"
 * 03 Nov 01:09 Talk:Muhammad/images "I cannot be any clearer than this"
 * 03 Nov 01:11 Talk:Muhammad/images ""
 * 03 Nov 01:34 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "pre-rebuttal of sorts."
 * 03 Nov 01:35 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (tweak)
 * 03 Nov 01:36 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (tweak)
 * 03 Nov 13:08 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "the ball is in Ludwigs' court"
 * 03 Nov 13:08 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (tweak)
 * 03 Nov 13:29 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "IDHT is not applicable"
 * 03 Nov 17:44 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ""Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" is opinion, not fact."
 * 03 Nov 18:17 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "I will briefly WP:AGF and presume that I did not make myself clear enough to Ludwigs the first time"
 * 03 Nov 19:48 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "end of story"
 * 04 Nov 00:22 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "this is dead in the water IMO"
 * 04 Nov 03:26 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "support"
 * 04 Nov 03:31 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "did you stop beating your wife?"
 * 04 Nov 03:51 User talk:Jimbo Wales "there is no valid issue here"
 * 04 Nov 12:33 User talk:Jimbo Wales "We have 2 editors here who consistently lie about editors perceiced as their wiki-opponents"
 * 04 Nov 15:30 User talk:Jimbo Wales "Griswaldo, while I may be caustic at times I do not imply that those I disagree with are doing do because of ethnic or racially-motivated reasons, as Hans and Ludwig do"
 * 04 Nov 17:09 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not ""a fringe aspect of Islamic art" is opinion, not fact."
 * 04 Nov 19:53: unrelated revert (xenophobic incivility )
 * 04 Nov 19:57 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "feel free to find something else to do"
 * 05 Nov 00:47 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "speaking of depth, Griswalso..."
 * 05 Nov 00:58 User talk:Jimbo Wales "it isn't your place to make such requests"
 * 06 Nov 01:06-01:16: related edits, but not relevant
 * 06 Nov 01:19 User talk:Jimbo Wales "yay for quotas :/"
 * 06 Nov 01:20 User talk:Jimbo Wales (tweak)
 * 06 Nov 02:23 User talk:Jimbo Wales "yep"
 * 07 Nov 00:47 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "tiring"
 * 07 Nov 00:57 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "Undid revision 459380796 by Tarc (talk) - no point, its like banging one's head into a wall...only feels good when you stop"
 * 07 Nov 01:07 User talk:Jimbo Wales "its like wtching a bad Inigo Montoya impersonation"
 * 07 Nov 01:07 User talk:Jimbo Wales (tweak)
 * 07 Nov 02:08 User talk:Jimbo Wales ""
 * 07 Nov 03:08 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "intellectual dishonesty FTW"
 * 07 Nov 03:36 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "ahh, sweet denial"
 * 07 Nov 03:50 User talk:Jimbo Wales "a "fundamental aspect of their faith" ?  Do you really undersand the source of the "no images" concern?"
 * 07 Nov 16:08 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "that you disagree with others does not mean that they are being illogical"
 * 08 Nov 13:52 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not ""
 * 08 Nov 17:33 Talk:Muhammad/images "seems ok if the article makes mentino of the event"
 * 08 Nov 17:34 Talk:Muhammad/images ""
 * 09 Nov 02:34 Talk:Herman Cain "not relevant to a biography."
 * 09 Nov 13:34 User talk:Jimbo Wales ""
 * 09 Nov 17:49 User talk:Jimbo Wales "people keep pointing at "ongoing protests" but fail to specify exactly what they're talking about"
 * 09 Nov 22:15 User talk:Jimbo Wales "meandering argument points"
 * 10 Nov 01:03 User talk:Jimbo Wales "we can't cheapen the project to appease a minority"
 * 10 Nov 02:04 User talk:RobertMfromLI "what the hell is this BS?"
 * 10 Nov 04:22 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "these two sections?"
 * 10 Nov 04:34 User talk:Jimbo Wales "some saying about flies and vinegar applies here"
 * 10 Nov 17:23 User talk:Jimbo Wales "not fact.  Opinion"
 * 10 Nov 21:01 User talk:Jimbo Wales "what is this now, #4?"
 * 10 Nov 21:02 User talk:Jimbo Wales (tweak)
 * 10 Nov 22:45 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "the message sent is crystal-clear"
 * 11 Nov 06:44 User talk:Jimbo Wales "time to slam the door on the heart of Ludwigs issues"
 * 11 Nov 17:19 User talk:Jimbo Wales "the "no, you are" defense"
 * 11 Nov 18:30 User talk:Jimbo Wales "not an attack, and a pointer to ANI"
 * 11 Nov 21:10 User talk:Jimbo Wales "present, not past"
 * 11 Nov 23:58 User talk:Jimbo Wales "re"
 * 12 Nov 03:40 User talk:Jimbo Wales "not sinking in yet?"
 * 12 Nov 05:43 User talk:Jimbo Wales "NPOV would require image retention"
 * 12 Nov 14:00 User talk:Jimbo Wales "NPOV is still being twisted to suit one's own ends"
 * 12 Nov 16:44 User talk:Jimbo Wales "rapidly running out of forums in which to shop"
 * 12 Nov 17:07 User talk:Jimbo Wales "how soon until Godwin's Law is invoked?"
 * 13 Nov 00:50 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "I keep rubbing my eyes thinking that that smug passage will just go away.  *rub*rub*rub*  Nope, it is still there.  Someone pinch me."
 * 13 Nov 01:33 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "here comes the fan club"
 * 13 Nov 02:50 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "someone unbinvolved plese kill this dead horse, it is beyond disgusting at this point"
 * 13 Nov 04:51 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "as jbmurray has taken a definitive stand with the antagonist in this affair, no, this is not an uninvolved person."
 * 13 Nov 05:19: unrelated edit
 * 13 Nov 05:35 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "jbmurray is involved"
 * 16 Nov 19:43 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ""
 * 16 Nov 19:52 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "offensiveness, loli, naked Russians, oh my!"
 * 17 Nov 17:36 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "Ludwigs, you either misremember or misrepresent the goatse debate"
 * 17 Nov 18:39 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "the key point is this; "not censored" in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue."
 * 17 Nov 19:41 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "sooner or later"
 * 17 Nov 20:36 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "falling flat"
 * 17 Nov 22:45 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "bullshit"
 * 18 Nov 00:29 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "re"
 * 18 Nov 00:30 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (tweak)
 * 18 Nov 05:17 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "the lively ones are out tonight"
 * 18 Nov 05:17 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (tweak)
 * 19 Nov 03:34 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "oppose"
 * 20 Nov 17:01 Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard "no point, just let it go on its own"
 * 22 Nov 05:13 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "someone's sitll breaking records, I see"
 * 22 Nov 05:58 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "On Paying Attention"
 * 22 Nov 17:21 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "this is simply a bad proposal"
 * 22 Nov 17:54 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "we're not a Babysitter Club, ludwigs"
 * 22 Nov 18:51 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "come up with a better reason than "it offends [group X]""
 * 22 Nov 18:57 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "is that code?"
 * 22 Nov 19:09 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "not the point, and beyond the scope of this discussion"
 * 22 Nov 19:55 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "personal responsibility"
 * 23 Nov 00:47 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "now where have I heard this screed before?  oh yea..."
 * 23 Nov 21:15 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "I find your "side" to be unappealing, which is why I just fine on mine, eraser."
 * 24 Nov 02:13 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not ""trivial material" is a product of the imagination"
 * 24 Nov 04:11 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "not only no, but hell no"
 * 24 Nov 04:41 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "can't hide form your own words, L"
 * 24 Nov 04:46 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "interesting mental imagery, L"
 * 25 Nov 01:39 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "unnecessary"
 * 25 Nov 01:47 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "oppose"
 * 25 Nov 04:19 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "short end of the stick"
 * 25 Nov 18:07 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "dead end"
 * 25 Nov 18:23 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "Adler goes off the deep end" [Brings topic up in an unrelated context, tries to read my mind and attacks me]
 * 25 Nov 19:28 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "convinced that you're right"
 * 25 Nov 21:32 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "response, then time to pull a Snagglepuss and exit, stage left."
 * 25 Nov 22:36 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "the last, last word, for real"
 * 25 Nov 23:27 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not ""Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in" - Michael Corleone"
 * 26 Nov 00:54 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "rejected"
 * 26 Nov 01:06 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "nothing else to do, but you you to move on"
 * 26 Nov 01:21 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "DR is for content disputes.  This isn't a content dispute is is a difference in policy application"
 * 26 Nov 01:39 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "IARs, prophets, pregnant boobies, ogh my"
 * 26 Nov 04:05 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not ""improper, incorrect, or unworkable""
 * 26 Nov 04:28: unrelated revert
 * 26 Nov 05:19 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "What part of "not...terribly concerned with" did you find confusing?"
 * 26 Nov 06:48 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "last one out, hit the lights"
 * 26 Nov 06:52: unrelated post
 * 26 Nov 14:11 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "far enough now"
 * 26 Nov 21:57 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "Don't lecture me, eraser"
 * 26 Nov 21:59 Talk:Muhammad/images "unnecessary"
 * 27 Nov 15:59 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "eraser's flawed logic"
 * 28 Nov 12:50 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "IWF got told"
 * 28 Nov 22:22 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "herring season"
 * 29 Nov 01:55 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "the RS idea is unworkable"
 * 29 Nov 05:01 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "its like a double-dose of amusement, responding to these two"
 * 29 Nov 13:24 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "NPOV and images and prominence: explained"
 * 29 Nov 15:01 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "x2"
 * 29 Nov 15:40 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "dead puppies aren't much fun, and neither are dead horses"
 * 29 Nov 16:41 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "this is bordering on bigotry"
 * 29 Nov 21:56 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "hatting earlier comment  for de-escalation of tensions, but there is a need to rebut a mischatacterization below"
 * 29 Nov 21:58 Administrators' noticeboard "hat for purposes of deescalation"
 * 30 Nov 01:11 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "point?"
 * 30 Nov 02:53 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "beholder"
 * 30 Nov 13:52 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "sigh"
 * 30 Nov 14:02 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not ""
 * 30 Nov 18:57 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "we aren't going to do that, eraser"
 * 30 Nov 19:07 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "bunk"

December

 * 01 Dec 20:24 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "define "incidental""
 * 01 Dec 20:44 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "theatrics"
 * 01 Dec 20:44 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "+WMF"
 * 01 Dec 21:21 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "bullshit, and unwatching this ridiculous page til Dick Clark counts the ball down"
 * 02 Dec 18:29 Deletion review/Log/2011 December 1 "still wrong, and the Muhammad comparison is BS" [related comment in unrelated discussion]
 * 02 Dec 18:36 Talk:Muhammad/images "I'll tellya what you're getting at..."
 * 02 Dec 20:52 Talk:Muhammad/images "your position is utterly indefensible"
 * 03 Dec 13:29 Talk:Muhammad/images "erasing strawmen"
 * 04 Dec 20:41 Talk:Muhammad/images "on failed arguments, edit-warring, and badgering other users"
 * 04 Dec 20:43 Talk:Muhammad/images "too many deplorable"
 * 04 Dec 20:44 User talk:Alanscottwalker "ignore this junk"
 * 05 Dec 21:07 Talk:Muhammad/images "compromise is not mandatory"
 * 06 Dec 01:55 Talk:Muhammad/images "here we go again"
 * 06 Dec 01:56 Talk:Muhammad/images ""
 * 06 Dec 04:31 Talk:Muhammad/images "1, 2, 3"
 * 06 Dec 14:30 Talk:Muhammad/images "yep, ludwigs went there"
 * 06 Dec 15:43 Talk:Muhammad/images "I am not Luke to your Anikin, sorry"
 * 06 Dec 20:10 Talk:Muhammad/images "not going to rehash this yet again"
 * 06 Dec 20:12 Talk:Muhammad/images "a strong consensus exists"
 * 06 Dec 22:24 Talk:Muhammad/images "feel free to begin your own project elsewhere"
 * 06 Dec 22:28 Talk:Muhammad/images "shooting down an image-censoring "point" for the umpteenth time"
 * 07 Dec 13:33 Talk:Muhammad/images "I find it amazing that this sort of stuff can be concocted with a straight face"
 * 07 Dec 20:44 Talk:Muhammad/images "debunking some inflated claims"
 * 07 Dec 21:18 Talk:Muhammad/images "not simp,y because they are IP editors,m but becuase they arne't here to contribute to an encyclopedia"
 * 07 Dec 23:05 Talk:Muhammad/images "2 for 1 day"
 * 07 Dec 23:05 Talk:Muhammad/images ""
 * 07 Dec 23:26 Talk:Muhammad/images "faint praise for L's POV, which is at least honest"
 * 08 Dec 02:48 Talk:Muhammad/images "It is quite in line with NPOV"
 * 08 Dec 02:52 Talk:Muhammad/images "a fundamental misuse of NPOV"
 * 08 Dec 14:42 Talk:Muhammad/images "no need"
 * 08 Dec 18:02 Talk:Muhammad/images "there are extremist individuals in this topic, but I don't think they are who you think they are."
 * 08 Dec 20:26 Talk:Muhammad/images "you've made your case and didn't win over many converts"
 * 09 Dec 14:16 Talk:Muhammad/images "a fundamental wiki-philosophical divide"
 * 09 Dec 15:37 Talk:Muhammad/images "you can't mediate your way into a policy change"
 * 09 Dec 23:20 Talk:Muhammad/images "random pictues?"
 * 09 Dec 23:53 Talk:Muhammad/images "og the fish are swimming in the barrels again"
 * 10 Dec 01:11 Talk:Muhammad/images "beyond tendentious"
 * 10 Dec 02:23 Talk:Muhammad/images "bad faith"
 * 10 Dec 04:23 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "twaddle"
 * 10 Dec 12:51 Talk:Muhammad/images "no insistence on a precise #"
 * 11 Dec 00:00 Talk:Muhammad/images "Brummel & Brown FTW"
 * 11 Dec 14:30 Talk:Muhammad/images "it isn't your place to dictate, eraser"
 * 11 Dec 15:10 Arbitration/Requests/Case ""
 * 11 Dec 15:25 Talk:Muhammad/images "if you mean the version that Ludwigs edit-warred over, no, that's completely unacceptable"
 * 11 Dec 15:38 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "oppose"
 * 11 Dec 15:41 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "Undid revision 465298279 by Tarc (talk) - Hmm, bad idea.  This'd be like posting an "oppose" in the "yes" part of an RfA"
 * 11 Dec 18:16 Arbitration/Requests/Case "Regarding the Controversial Content Resolution"
 * 12 Dec 19:01 User talk:Thryduulf "new section"
 * 12 Dec 23:19 Talk:Muhammad/images "who no mention of past discussions?"
 * 13 Dec 00:53 Talk:Muhammad/images ":/"
 * 13 Dec 01:23 Talk:Muhammad/images "Seems like the only drama here was created by the OP, but whatever.  redacted."
 * 13 Dec 13:24 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests "new section"
 * 13 Dec 14:05 Arbitration/Requests/Case "to Roger Davies"
 * 13 Dec 14:17 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests "fair?"
 * 13 Dec 15:46 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests "excuse me?"
 * 14 Dec 03:16 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests "in in what other venues is this acceptable?"
 * 15 Dec 21:14 Wikipedia talk:Verifiability "editors need to respect consensus where it exists and stop pushing where it does not exist." [related comment in unrelated discussion]
 * 16 Dec 14:57 User:Tarc "RAWR" [unrelated, but interesting self-description]
 * 21 Dec 20:38 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "sdrawkcab"
 * 21 Dec 20:39 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 21 Dec 21:06 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "the heart of this dispute is conflicting interpretations"
 * 21 Dec 22:53 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "mentoring is not appropriate for an established user"
 * 22 Dec 03:03 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 22 Dec 14:02 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence ""not agreed to" != "not heard""
 * 22 Dec 19:11 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence ""
 * 22 Dec 20:47 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence "cutting quotes down"
 * 22 Dec 20:51 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence "more, to make sure we're under"
 * 22 Dec 23:18 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence "trimmy trim"
 * 23 Dec 00:30 User talk:Tarc ""
 * 23 Dec 00:34 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "why bother to say that?"
 * 23 Dec 14:21 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "response"
 * 23 Dec 16:08 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence "article met GA status July 2008"
 * 23 Dec 17:58 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "evidence is not evidence, it is opinion"
 * 23 Dec 18:07 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 23 Dec 18:12 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "advocacy by proxy is the point"
 * 23 Dec 18:18 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "you can't presuppose what a compromise wil lresult in"
 * 23 Dec 23:56 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence "it is still rated GA"
 * 24 Dec 03:42 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence "nog it up"
 * 24 Dec 14:46 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "that?"
 * 24 Dec 15:48 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "and with that, /bows out"
 * 24 Dec 16:02 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "a "long and painful process" could have likely been avoided"
 * 24 Dec 16:14 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "agree"
 * 24 Dec 16:25 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 24 Dec 16:27 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "explained"
 * 24 Dec 16:35 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "i.e., stopping now"
 * 24 Dec 20:19 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "last attempt"
 * 24 Dec 20:23 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "Undid revision 467543818 by Eraserhead1 (talk) - resolve your edit conflict, pls.  Your comment wiped mine out"
 * 24 Dec 20:33 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence "condensing, reformatting, adding one"
 * 26 Dec 00:59 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "mm, gravy"
 * 26 Dec 01:13 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "this'll surely ruffle a few PC feathers, but that's life"
 * 26 Dec 01:14 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "odious"
 * 26 Dec 01:16 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "lines"
 * 26 Dec 02:57 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "Mr. Hanky"
 * 26 Dec 21:46 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "being free of offense is not a right"
 * 26 Dec 21:57 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "enwiki for a reason"
 * 26 Dec 21:59 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "no point"
 * 26 Dec 22:13 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "this was never really applicable"
 * 26 Dec 22:27 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "noble, but not applicable"
 * 27 Dec 01:03 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "lodging a strong protest"
 * 27 Dec 01:31 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "point. missed."
 * 27 Dec 02:15 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "well, someone is off the christmas card list for next year"
 * 27 Dec 02:23 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "I have been opposed to the very concept of Wiki-retraining roders for years"
 * 27 Dec 04:23 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "re"
 * 27 Dec 04:30 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "you're undercotting your own credibility"
 * 27 Dec 06:50 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "a difference in opinion is not a good reason to try to squelch opposing points of view, Jayen"
 * 27 Dec 13:00 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "there is no good-faith explaantion for Adler's commentary"
 * 27 Dec 13:33 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 27 Dec 13:34 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 27 Dec 13:51 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests "no soup for you"
 * 27 Dec 14:35 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""instead""
 * 27 Dec 14:44 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "false dichotomy"
 * 27 Dec 14:54 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "you know where the evidence lies"
 * 27 Dec 15:14 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "new"
 * 27 Dec 15:19 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 27 Dec 15:24 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "I have given you the information; what you do with it is your trip, not mine"
 * 27 Dec 15:26 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "I do not envision making use of these sections, not my place to recommend sanctions"
 * 27 Dec 22:35 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "this is in regards to image discussions, not the article itself"
 * 27 Dec 22:39 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "coincidence or divine intervention?"
 * 28 Dec 00:29 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "seriously?"
 * 28 Dec 14:07 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "I'm not the only date he brought to the party"
 * 28 Dec 15:03 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "I'm not going to be your scapegoat, eraser"
 * 28 Dec 15:13 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 28 Dec 16:10 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "well played, Mauer"
 * 28 Dec 17:18 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "2006 is a long time ago in wiki terms"
 * 28 Dec 17:21 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "maybe he really was Santa Claus"
 * 28 Dec 20:20 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "I don't think the burden lies in that direction."
 * 28 Dec 22:04 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "seems like some have champagne and cigars ready to go"
 * 28 Dec 22:26 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "its not all that unreasonable"
 * 28 Dec 22:49 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""
 * 28 Dec 23:48 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "let em take the rope"
 * 29 Dec 13:47 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "bull"
 * 29 Dec 13:49 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "in all things, moderation"
 * 29 Dec 18:41 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "do you wish to rethink that line of argumentation, Mr. Cole?"
 * 29 Dec 18:43 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop "not the right place"
 * 29 Dec 18:43 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop ""

Wikipedia takes religious concerns into account to some extent
A good example is the article currently at Genesis creation narrative.

My own contributions

 * Talk:Muhammad/images
 * Talk:Muhammad/images
 * Talk:Muhammad/images
 * 22 Oct 12:22 Talk:Muhammad/images "A reminder to the regular editors here: The way this wiki operates, if a local consensus is in massive breach of our general principles, then ultimately the problem will be taken to the wider community where it will be resolved. This particular problem (purely ornamental images of Muhammad as a tool for showing Muslims that they are not welcome here) has been going on for way too long, and it appears we have reached the point where escalation to a community-wide discussion advertised at WP:CENTRALIZED has become inevitable. In this situation, if you try too hard to protect your vested right to humiliate Muslims by offending them for no encyclopedic reason at all, you may well find that you will lose more than just this argument."
 * 22 Oct 12:54 Talk:Muhammad/images "I think the issue isn't so much whether the article contains such images, but how many, for what purpose, and how prominently they are displayed. (I believe the last point was once a problem with this article, but it is not at the moment.) A historical depiction of Muhammad taken from a Muslim context, chosen judiciously to illustrate a specific point made in the text, is one thing. Five Islamic paintings showing Muhammad (among others) plus one by a Christian painter gives a completely different message. To still keep the question relatively simple, we could ask: 'Under what conditions can a painting that depicts Muhammad be used in this article?'"
 * 22 Oct 23:08 Talk:Muhammad/images "WP:CENSOR is not 'the most important and all encompassing policy on Wikipedia', and even those editors who choose to stretch it so far as to make it contradict WP:UNDUE have a hard time arguing that WP:CENSOR is the superior of the two -- which is why they generally practise WP:IDHT and completely ignore the question why we need no less than five images to illustrate such an extremely minor point as the existence of Islamic depictions of Muhammad."
 * 23 Oct 03:55 Talk:Muhammad/images Longish comment.
 * 23 Oct 04:09 Talk:Muhammad/images "After edit conflict: Anthonyhcole's above proposed RfC question demonstrates the problem with the question by having the opposite problem. The most likely outcome of both questions would be: 'Yes, the article should contain images of Muhammad. No, the images presently there do not conform to Wikipedia policy.'"
 * 24 Oct 05:52 Talk:Muhammad/images "Just to clarify my own position: I actually agree with Ludwigs2 that the pictures don't add anything to the article that would justify including them given the offence they cause. Most could legitimately be used to illustrate the fact that Muhammad was once depicted in Islam, and one could legitimately be used to illustrate the Western Muhammad reception. In my opinion the first point is so minor that the controversial illustration has undue weight, and in the second case the choice of image is basically arbitrary, making it a mere visual aid rather than encyclopedic content. Therefore in my opinion the images should not be included on balance, but other editors can reasonably differ and therefore I am predicting an RfC outcome between zero and two."
 * 30 Oct 14:11 Talk:Muhammad/images "There is nothing wrong about "implicitly paint[ing] you as unethical". In fact, I hereby say explicitly that unless your brain is functioning in a seriously unusual way (such as autism, to give a concrete example) or you come from a weird culture with seriously twisted ethics, the fact that your perspective is thoroughly unethical simply cannot be argued away."
 * 30 Oct 15:48 Talk:Muhammad/images "I don't need to draw a line anywhere. Any reasonable line will run somewhere between (1) illustrations that do not support anything that is said in the text, used in an article on one of the key topics of one of the major world religions even though that religion rejects such illustrations and they are totally atypical for it, and (2) completely made-up hypothetical objections against useful illustrations on non-religious articles, which could theoretically be made by members of a religion made up on the spot for the sake of the continuum fallacy. We can consider the drawing of a precise line if and when an actual borderline case comes up, the same as we do for all our other policies and guidelines as well. Continuuous insistence on fallacies is often an indication of at least borderline bad faith. Ludwigs2's attempt to bring this situation before Arbcom has failed because there were no sufficient behavioural issues yet. But I have not doubt that if this bad faith behaviour continues we will all meet there in the end."
 * 30 Oct 19:02 Talk:Muhammad/images "As you are clearly not engaging with what I wrote on the intellectual level that is required for resolving a dispute responsibly and intelligently, and are instead again relying on the continuum fallacy, there is nothing much I can do at this point other than repeating myself so that you can ignore me yet again. Or drawing attention to the behavioural problem, as I am doing with this post."
 * 30 Oct 22:14 Talk:Muhammad/images "I guess I have no hold for preventing other editors from expressing a positive opinion on me, but I feel compelled to at least point out that due to your consistent behaviour on this page I am completely unable to return the compliment."
 * 01 Nov 06:52 Talk:Muhammad/images Longish comment.
 * 03 Nov 19:37 WT:NOT "No. What happens is that advocates of humiliating Muslims engage in circular arguments, basically making the claim that "the value of these images musts not be examined / is enormous because Muslims are offended". These images are atypical for Islam (the obvious context of the article on Muhammad) and therefore misleading about the traditional iconography of Muhammad. Since a legitimate purpose can barely be construed, the inevitable effect is the impression of deliberate breaking of Muslim norms on a key article, perhaps the most important article, on Islam. If that's not tantamount to deliberate humiliation of Muslims, then I don't know what is."
 * 03 Nov 20:09 WT:NOT "Taking your claims of the context in which you see Muhammad at face value, for the sake of the argument, it is clearly at odds with the reception of Muhammad in reliable sources -- even after discarding all those that were written from a Muslim POV."
 * 03 Nov 20:15 WT:NOT "'the top front page wasn't a picture of the danish cartoon bomb hat muhammad' -- correct, but surely not for want of trying. The Muhammad article always insults Muslims exactly up to the point that it can get away with it. For some time this included a painting of Muhammad in hell."
 * 03 Nov 20:22 User talk:Jimbo Wales "Maybe something like this? or the crucifixion of Brian under 'Reception'? But the real issue isn't that we aren't shocking Christians enough on the Jesus article. It is that we are shocking Muslims on the Muhammad article for no good reason. Even most liberal Muslims who wouldn't mind naturalistic depictions of Muhammad in a more appropriate context (such as the article Depictions of Muhammad) will feel that this is a deliberate insult to and humiliation of Muslims."
 * 03 Nov 20:55 "See outgroup homogeneity bias for the scientific explanation of Resolute's accusation of bad faith."
 * 03 Nov 20:55 (in response to comment pointing to Genesis creation narrative title controversy) "Excellent point."
 * 03 Nov 22:54 "I referred specifically to the effect which the atypical overuse of images must have on liberal Muslims who wouldn't normally mind such depictions: solidarisation with their extreme faithmates who reject them. Your mirroring of my accusation is therefore obviously invalid. I note that I have observed such unfounded 'you, too!' reactions many times in tendentious editors. It is a typical sign of editors who try to win a debate without listening to their opponents."
 * 04 Nov 12:05 "'While we certainly don't want to offend anyone unnecessarily' -- wrong. The current state of the Muhammad article, after archives and archives full of discussions, proves that Wikipedia, as a community, goes to great lengths in order to find rationalisations for deliberately offending Muslims unnecessarily."
 * 17 Nov 17:58 WT:NOT "I don't think so. He simplified the situation. Of course a full description of the dispute would have included the information that even though it was and is bloody obvious that such an image has no business in any encyclopedia that addresses a wide audience, the matter could only be decided once an for all through the copyright detour. This just shows the extent of the problem."
 * 17 Nov 18:57 WT:NOT "'I find it curious that when confronted with a misstatement of yours, you are unable to own up to it. It bears repeating; 'not censored' in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue.' -- Exactly. That's precisely the problem that we are trying to address here. That we have reached a point where it was impossible to remove a photo that shows a naked man from behind, with his anus stretched and wide open to an extent that most people would believe anatomically impossible, for the right reason, so that in the end it was easier to go a different route. "
 * 18 Nov 00:27 WT:NOT "Your refusal to give a straightforward answer to this simple yes/no question leaves us wondering whether you would support the described kind of video but feel that it's not opportune to admit the fact, or whether you would not and are aware that this shoots a huge hole into your argument."
 * 18 Nov 22:36 WT:NOT "Sarcasm? Maybe it didn't work very well as sarcasm precisely because it was never intended as such. On the rare occasions that I vomit, I never see what it looks like, as I am never in the mood to use a mirror. On the rare occasions that someone else vomits in my presence, I run for a bucket or otherwise try to be of assistance, and also don't concentrate on how, precisely, it works. I am convinced that a video of a vomiting person would be extremely instructive. And yes, if the person were naked, a number of additional observations could be made. What we are trying to find out (well, obviously I can only speak for myself) is whether you and Bus stop go so far that you would support such a video in the vomiting article, or whether you are just being hypocritical. Because it does appear that a lot of anti-censorship extremists are hypocrites who would reject the hypothetical vomiting video because they don't agree with it and want to censor it, but whenever other people have the same feelings about something they are comfortable with, they insist that this must not be taken into account at all. While trying to stay in their own comfort zone all the time, these hypocrites insist on violating others'."
 * 19 Nov 12:24 WT:NOT "Moral support only. The proposal goes generally in the right direction, but due to the issues described by ASCIIn2Bme, in practice it would shift the balance way too far. We just need a minor correction that helps to shut up those editors who shout everyone down as soon as they sense a chance that content they like is removed based on a normal editorial consensus that factors in real-life people's reactions."
 * 19 Nov 17:14 WT:NOT "Do not address me by my naked last name. In all places where I have lived so far that is incredibly rude, especially in an adversarial context. For further information see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, which applies similarly to me except that on Wikipedia everybody may call me Hans and I actually prefer 'Mr Adler' to 'Dr Adler'. And just in case it's not clear, 'Herr Adler' is also not an acceptable option in a civil English conversation."
 * 19 Nov 19:59 WT:NOT "Sorry, but I am not just going to take your word for it. I don't think there are any hypocrites in the world who know that they are hypocritical. I have described the test above, and rather than wait for the two editors to whom this was addressed to respond, you have come to their rescue. That's not a good sign at all."
 * 21 Nov 12:09 WT:NOT "Support. NOTCENSORED is often used frivolously to support POV pushing and intentional breaking of social norms as part of a cultural war. NOTCENSORED is for minimising disruption caused by unreasonable complaints, not for making sure that Wikipedia contains more 'offensive' content than it would without the policy and if nobody were trying to censor it."
 * 21 Nov 17:53 WT:NOT "This proposal has put the finger precisely on the right point. Congratulations. Anyone opposing this change will have a hard time arguing that this happens in good faith. "
 * 23 Nov 08:28 WT:NOT "People use the word 'secular' in different ways. Wikipedia is secular in the sense of being neutral on religious matters. It is not secular in the sense of covering religious topics primarily from a scientific point of view."
 * 25 Nov 18:35 WT:NOT "Repeating the same things all the time is actually what distinguishes them from ELIZA."
 * 27 Nov 08:47 WT:NOT (In response to an image caption) "No it isn't suitable and it isn't unoffensive. Whether an image is offensive or not depends on its context and the weight it is given, and if this image weren't offensive to you (whoever you are) in that context, you wouldn't have used it as an example. And what makes you believe it's OK to push your POV in images without leaving a signature?"
 * 29 Nov 21:37 WT:NOT Very long post, creating new section "The path to Wikipedia policy fundamentalism -- a case study". (Third paragraph from bottom later removed as erroneous.)
 * 01 Dec 20:33 WT:NOT "One thing we could do as part of such an RfC is make sure that we stop lying about Wikipedia not being censored. Of course it is censored. The policy that details how this censorship works in practice is WP:OFFICE. At WP:OFFICE you can find a table listing the articles that are currently subject to such censorship. In some cases  is used to make readers and editors aware of the censorship. That's just the most official form of censorship, of course. I recently got a number of perfectly reasonable, normal, harmless and relevant talk page posts censored under the pretext that BLP applies to talk page comments with full strength, as if something I say in our internal discussions had the same effect as a claim in someone's biography. I was surprised by the large number of editors who supported that instance of unnecessary censorship. As another example, per WP:BLPEL and WP:ELBLP we censor links to websites that incite hatred against a living person even if they are so notable that they are discussed in the person's biography."
 * 10 Dec 00:19 Talk:Muhammad/images Very long comment.
 * 10 Dec 01:26 Talk:Muhammad/images "Rubbish. What I described is the standard that we are applying everywhere when articles come under scrutiny, although of course the encyclopedia is unfinished and most articles don't follow these standards yet. If you don't believe me, let's ask on the talk page of WP:FAC what the regulars there think. Maybe they will put things a bit differently to account for situations I didn't consider, but the result will ultimately be the same in most cases and also in this case. In this particular article the images have come under scrutiny because some silly religious rules make them contentious. And because they are under scrutiny, we will do the right thing here. Come to think of it, making this a featured article might be the best solution. Because it guarantees scrutiny by competent and experienced editors, and once the article has passed only after certain changes to the images, you will find it very hard to get a consensus for reverting the article to a state where it would be demoted."
 * 10 Dec 17:48 Talk:Muhammad/images "Interesting move. Would you have chosen it if you saw any chance that the article would get through FAC in a state in which it looks like the inside of a Catholic church? "
 * 11 Dec 14:09 Talk:Muhammad/images "Probably. But the discussion got disrupted to the point that I am not sure what the proposal is saying precisely, when all later modifications (if any) are factored in."

Some opinions
"Hmm, I think we should aim for a presentation that community consensus agrees is in line with presentations in reputable secondary sources. What I mean is this: it isn't reliable sources *versus* community consensus, but rather that the proper goal of community consensus should be (generally) to reflect what is in reliable sources.

To be very very specific rather than abstract, we should be careful not to allow political views held by almost all Wikipedians (in a particular language) to distract us from the demands of NPOV. So as an example, if reliable sources suggest that depictions of Muhammad are rare, we shouldn't as a "political act" shove a bunch of them in just to prove some kind of case against censorship - if we do so, then we misrepresent history.

True NPOV in this area would involve finding a consensus about what reliable sources do. Depictions of Muhammad needs to have some historically relevant and important ones because that's what the article is about. Muhammad though, should not mislead the reader into thinking such images are common if they are not. This doesn't mean that the number should be zero, necessarily, just that it should reflect what is found in reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)"

Evidence page
[B] blatant battleground behaviour [C] severe confusion about policy and its application [I] islamophobia, bigotry etc.


 * ASCIIn2Bme:
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- [I]
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- Severe confusion about proper evaluation of reliable sources. [C]
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- Misrepresentation and confusion about RS evaluation. The author in question is Annemarie Schimmel. Her influential book in question, "And Muhammad is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety", is not strictly a biography though it contains a lot of biographical information. Of course it is listed in the cited obituary among her significant works. "rather than Sufi prose/poetry" is a non sequitur in this context and suggests that ASCIIn2Bme doesn't have the faintest idea what the book is about. I can't verify or falsify the claim in the second paragraph, but surely missing an illustration on p. 196 of a book with > 1000 pages would not exactly be strong evidence of source misrepresentation.
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- Except for a few pages the book chapter presented can be read on Google Books, and it is necessary to do so because by implication, ASCIIn2Bme misrepresents its content. The overall message, as I understand it, is that the conversion of the Mongols started a process that made figural depictions of Muhammad common in a limited geographical area, though always with a veil and only in what appears to have been children's literature. This does not seem sufficient to qualify Jayen466's "figurative images have played a very limited (and no public) role" as "POV pushing through falsehoods".


 * Coren:
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- An example of poor wikilawyering by an involved arbitrator (for whom I voted in the last elections :. The plain language of WP:NOTCENSORED makes it perfectly clear that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee [adherance to norms]", that "inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed", that "articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when [...] relevant", that "'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal". "Any rules that forbid members of a given [...] religion to show [an] image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member", but that's like saying that British libel law doesn't apply to Wikipedia in that it does not support completely discarding the concerns underlying the rule or law. Finally: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." It is possible to discuss all aspects of offensive content without focus (i.e. undue weight) on the offensiveness, and that's obviously the intent of NOTCENSORED. But it's not possible if one side tries to throw offensiveness and any other arguments 'tainted' by it out completely as a priori inadmissible.
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence, @Anthonyhcole -- This seems to be pushing the transcription monkey theory, with an explicit exception for featured content. Pretty ridiculous. If it were true that inclusion criteria are objective, Arbcom could uncontroversially rule on inclusion or non-inclusion even in relatively difficult cases. That's clearly not the case.


 * Resolute:
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- The first two rows of diffs simply show Ludwigs2 insisting on two key points that were not being acknowledged by the opposite side. Relevance of an image is not a yes/no thing. Photo or authentic lifetime portrait > iconic image > representative artist's impression  > unusual artist's impression  > eccentric artist's impression . Making a valid point that Resolute does not want to acknowledge is not tendentious editing. "[Ludwig's] habit of forcing the discussion in circles has simply wasted dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of time". Ludwigs2 was on the side of the discussion that was moving. With the exception only of Resolute, Resolute's side was occupied with wikilawyering to build a tight fence which the discussion was not supposed to leave.


 * Tarc:
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- Tarc's evidence under the rubric "shifting arguments" shows how Ludwigs2 responded constructively to other editors' objections. That Tarc presents this evidence here against Ludwigs2 demonstrates that his persistent accusations of bad faith against Ludwigs2 are meant seriously. He did, and still does, believe that Ludwigs2 is motivated only by the goal of removing the images as a service to Sunni extremists, and that he does not care about the way to achieve this. I doubt there is anything that Ludwigs2 could have done, or could do now, to convince him otherwise.
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- The six diffs show no such thing. They show Ludwigs2 complaining, correctly, that he paid for an argument and all he is getting is contradiction.
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- Again, the link (somewhat pointy though not completely unjustified changing of subsection title) has nothing to do with the claim it is supposed to support. The last paragraph just shows Tarc having difficulty with the concept that some editors' understanding may be inferior. To be honest, I can't blame him for not liking the idea. But editors such as Tarc, RobertMFromLI (or QuackGuru, to give an example from another recent case where Ludwigs2 was exposed to this issue) represent a serious problem for Wikipedia's consensus-oriented process, and there seems to be no way to solve this problem without making it explicit.

Very poor evidence with some of the characteristics you would expect from a bully who thought he could hide in a mob and becomes all delicate and touchy when this is pointed out.
 * Noformation:

I doubt this is worth serious comment.
 * RobertMfromLI:


 * Kww:
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence
 * There is nothing here to be held against Ludwigs2. This was a discussion between two consenting adults, and in my experience all discussion with Peter jackson have a somewhat surreal quality. Certainly not the fault of Ludwigs2, for whom this was apparently the first discussion on a Wikipedia talk page.
 * He moved quotations from various Christians from a footnote in the lead to more appropriate footnotes further down. How is that supposed to emphasize them?
 * One really must be an extremist to characterise this diff as reprehensible "defense of quack medicines".
 * Similar.
 * Rephrasing blatant, judgemental language by more encyclopedic language saying the same things is hardly support for 'remote viewing'.
 * Ludwigs2 actually makes a very valid point there.
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Evidence -- One particular proposal to immediately turn this principle into a policy document has been rejected almost unanimously, with almost every body pointing out that various practical matters are the worst problem. To try to sell this here as the community's rejection of the principle itself is audacious.

To a large extent he is just arguing for his position on the content question. He then draws comparisons to other articles for which the unique circumstances of the Muhammad article (problematic relation to depictions by majority of followers of religion founded by biography subject) are not satisfied though they are otherwise comparable. He assumes but does not even argue that these unique circumstances must not factor in. He claims there is a compromise but does not point to a discussion where it arose. (I think it's actually a stable condition reached under the influence of forces going both ways. A consensus is something much better.) The last sentence takes "principle of least astonishment" literally in a way that is clearly not reasonable.
 * Johnbod:

I think Ludwigs2 is right that Mathsci has a history of injecting himself into cases that concern Ludwigs2, and I am also under the impression that this happened here. Probably in good faith. If I had the time I would collect diffs showing that many if not most of the Ludwigs2 diffs were reactions to similar but stronger comments in his directions or to comments of an unquivocal RANDY quality.
 * Mathsci:

Good-faith consensus finding and status quo
1) As a wiki, Wikipedia is built on the fundamental principle of consensus. All editors are required to contribute to the consensus-finding process in good faith. The search for a consensus may occasionally get unproductive or disruptive and have to be postponed. It is not acceptable to rely on this mechanism and block reasonable productive discussion in order to defend a status quo.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Seems mostly obvious and uncontroversial. The only point of contention that I am anticipating here is applicability. For this, see my evidence on Tarc, and see how Resolute's compromise proposal was disrupted.


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia's reaction to attempted censorship
2) Attempts from outside Wikipedia to censor our content lead to increased scrutiny. In such cases, it is vital that the community focuses on getting the articles right and makes sure that reactance do not get into the way of NPOV and other policies. This applies equally on the height of the public attention and long after the attempted censorship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See my response to AGK at . It is hard to tell how many editors are thinking in the reactance logic, but there are good reasons to suspect many of them are, and some of the observed behaviour is so far out of bounds that I think it only makes sense in this context. Based on this, I think this might be relevant to the case, and even if it's not used for any specific findings or remedies it's still worth pointing out.


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Religious offence not a priori ruled out as an argument
1) According to WP:NOTCENSORED, religiously motivated feelings of offence are generally not sufficient grounds for removal. This does not rule out a careful weighting of offence (along with other reasons for removal) against reasons for inclusion. A number of editors interpret WP:NOTCENSORED as requiring that such feelings must not be given any weight at all in editorial deliberations. This interpretation is incorrect.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This interpretation is objectively incorrect per the wording of WP:NOTCENSORED. Evidence that some editors still interpret it that way:
 * Coren: "Offensiveness should not be a factor in deciding whether or which images to use [=heading] The substantive matter revolves around whether some images may be "offensive" and should be excluded on that ground. This is exactly what WP:CENSORED is meant to prevent, despite repeated claims that it is being misused when used for its primary function." (Note how the heading is much more extreme than the body of this proposed 'evidence'.)
 * Thryduulf: Proposed principle 3).
 * Kww: "The nature of the controversy is one which is irrelevant to the project, and must be ignored while making all policy and editorial decisions." (on workshop page) "NOTCENSORED simply eliminates a kind of argument for removal [...]" (ditto)
 * Noformation: "Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and we are not censored. Policy specifically prohibits considering religious beliefs when deciding content." (probably not formally in evidence).


 * Comment by others:

Muhammad images in a state of equilibrium, not consensus
2) With respect to figural depictions of the subject, the Muhammad article is in a state of equilibrium between those who would prefer more or more prominent figurative depictions and those who would prefer less. A number of editors have claimed that this equilibrium represents a consensus. That is incorrect. There is no consensus on the number, type and placement of figural depictions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * We have clear evidence that many want more figurative images, want them in the infobox, or even want the painting of Muhammad in hell. We also have clear evidence that many want no figurative images at all or want them confined to the section discussing such depictions. (We also have evidence that the equilibrium moved slightly in favour of such images as a reaction to attacks from outside Wikipedia.) Consensus is when most editors feel that a situation is reasonable and that it would not be worth to make a fuss just to get it absolutely right. Mere equilibrium without consensus is when most editors feel that a situation is wrong and absolutely needs changing, but know that they can't do anything about it because others would pull vigorously in the opposite direction.
 * Evidence of the incorrect claim:
 * Tarc: "The article as it is right now is a product of consensus, as Resolute has noted below."


 * Comment by others:

Unsupported claims of usefulness
3) Many editors have made blanket claims that the figural depictions of Muhammad are encyclopedic or educationally useful in the article. When they were pressed on the matter, the only arguments offered were (a) based on the general relevance inherent in every naturalistic but imprecise depictions, and/or (b) based on the cultural role of these pictures in the reception of the subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Johnbod: "I think the pictures are certainly useful and, as the selection has evolved, well-balanced." (Response to AGK; does not give any reasons, which were not asked for explicitly, but goes into great detail otherwise)
 * Resolute: "In my view, the depictions most certainly aids the article. And the truth is, this should be so self-evident that such a question should not even need to be asked. They are direct representations of the article subject, in most cases showing the subject during a notable moment of their life. Their very nature is educational: they reveal how Muhhamad has been viewed throughout history, even by Muslims. The very fact that we have 100 Islamic depictions and nearly 150 total should make it self-evident people throughout history have found value in such imagery. I believe we do too, exactly as we do on any other article subject." (Response to AGK)
 * Alanscottwalker: "The images are educationally useful. If they need to be further contextualized by the text, to avoid unwanted implication, than that can be readily done. The Muhammad article is the biography of a man  -- this is not an article whose purpose is art, art history, religion, or architecture. It is apparent by looking at them that the images in the article bear some kind of naturalistic representation of the man, Muhammad, although they are certainly not photographic. (Indeed, it is the fact that they do so, that gives rise to any religious objection that they could be idolotrous). They are images of a man, that all have said is the man Muhammad, doing things that are important in the story of his life." (Response to AGK 1; continues with cultural observations)
 * Alanscottwalker: "An important reason for the policy is because we are in the project to make knowledge as concrete and accessible as we can to a pluralistic audience. Thus, in the biography of a man, we at a minimum say: this is a man's life, this is what is important about him, these are illustrations of that. All topically related images used in an article (thus having consensus) are contextualized and explained in words, not misrepresented, and not deleted. "
 * FormerIP: "Including images for the sake of including images is good enough." (Response to AGK 3)
 * Tivanir2: "I find all the pictures useful; both caligraphy and images since they show different things about muhammad. Calligraphy gives us information about how he is currently portrayed in the Islamic world, while the images give us an idea of how his followers perceived him to be. Both give us insights into what he has molded (i.e. legacy) the religious followers into today." (Response to AGK)
 * ASCIIn2Bme: "As I said in my reply to your first question: the art-type depictions included are reception-type images: they illustrate how Muhammad was depicted in various cultures across time. There was a time and place where anthropomorphic, non-veiled depictions of him were common. And it was an important Islamic culture." (Response to AGK 3)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: