Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Courcelles
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Jclemens
 * 5) John Vandenberg
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) PhilKnight
 * 9) Risker
 * 10) Roger Davies

Inactive:
 * 1) Cool Hand Luke
 * 2) Hersfold
 * 3) Mailer diablo
 * 4) SilkTork
 * 5) SirFozzie
 * 6) Xeno

Recused:
 * 1) Coren
 * 2) Elen of the Roads

Comment by Collect

 * 1) In the case at hand - use of images is clearly a content dispute and not really amenable to ArbCom.
 * 2) Wikipedia has a great many users from a great many backgrounds, political, religious and social beliefs; it is impossible for any encyclopedia to not offend anyone at all.  Nor do any Wikipedia policies or guidelines remotely attempt to prevent such. WP:ASTONISH does not mean that no one will ever take offense at an article, nor should article editors assume that they have an obligation not to offend anyone. (Were it within ArbCom's purview, I would suggest that this page be rewritten to make this clear - it appears to be misused all too often for reasons not anticipated by those who originally wrote it),
 * 3) Again, while it is not in ArbCom's direct traditional purview, ArbCom ought to suggest that an independent group of editors be selected or named with a specific and limited authority to determine where WP:ASTONISH is actually being violated, and, following such determination, be vested with authority to maintain their decision, and to ensure that WP:ASTONISH, or any other policies or guidelines named in that committee's purview, is not used as a "dead horse" arguemnt thereafter in any area or article.
 * 4) By extention, elected and neutral select committees might profitably examine the use of "infinitely long duration tags" on articles,  and the apparent use of articles as "advocacy articles" in general on Wikipedia.  A sub-committee of ArbCom might be actually able to examine such in detail without breaching the "no content dispute" rule.  Collect (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
I noticed that I am quoted above, although I am not a party. I will state my case one more time, including the quote that Hans finds so offensive.
 * "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the religious objections of a billion Muslims and the religious objections of three remote tribespeople are precisely and absolutely equal, because popularity has nothing to do with whether an objection is valid, and neither side's objection has any merit that a secular encyclopedia can evaluate. Taking one into account without taking the other into account is morally abhorrent. The only way to treat them both equally is to disregard them both, and that is precisely what we have to do. By any measure that is relevant to an encyclopedia, the images of Mohammed are not controversial at all. I'm not worried that your stance will result in massive censorship, I'm worried that your stance will result in highly selective censorship favoring some large groups, which is a more damaging result by far.

That really is the end result here: large groups claiming offense at things get images removed and articles tailored to their perspectives, and small groups of equally offended people offended for equally valid reasons do not. That's not our goal. It runs in complete opposition to our goals. We must not take this kind of offense into account in our editorial policy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this is a content dispute, and only a small handful of editors refuse to understand the relevant policies. If Arbcom takes this case, I think Ludwigs2 clearly has unaddressable behavioural problems that might warrant increasing the scope of his current topic ban. The others, while unhappy about being on the wrong side of policy, are probably able to contain their disappointment and be productive editors.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: I think the WMF resolution was primarily a reaction to the porn repository problem on Commons. It certainly isn't limited to Commons, but I think any effort by the foundation to mandate that we incorporate religious perspectives into our editorial policy should be soundly rebuffed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: I think you've fallen into the trap of assuming that there is something special about images of Muhammad. From any objective basis, there isn't. The same logic should be used for image selection that we use for any similar figure. Jesus is generally held as a parallel article, but it actually isn't, because it isn't universally accepted that Jesus existed. Muhammad clearly existed, and there are real world histories of him generated by secular scholars. Genghis Khan is actually a better parallel, and, not surprisingly, the image choices and usage in the two articles are fairly similar. There is an unnecessary deference to Islamic religious beliefs in Muhammad already, as demonstrated by the difference in the lead images. The images in the article illustrate the topic, and were not intended to attack the topic. Note that the many "Muhammad in hell" images are not present, nor are the Danish cartoons, nor are the "Let's Draw Mohammed Day" illustrations. The images that show his face were generally drawn by Muslims that believed their depictions were respectful.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did forget to answer one point: of course I will honor an RFC.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I don't really have much to add that Tarc and Kww have written and endorse their statements.

I will say though that there is an issue to look at here, but it isn't the content dispute that Eraserhead1 has framed. It is the conduct of a small handful of users, including Ludwigs2, Erasherhead1, Jayen466, Whatamidoing and Anthonyhcole that needs looking into. I am not tarring them all with the same brush, particularly Ledwigs2 is considerably the worst offender and Eraserhead1 in second place, the other three's conduct merit looking at but they may be found to have done nothing appropriate. The conduct at Talk:Muhammad/Images, Talk:Pregnancy and WT:NOT at least need to be looked at possibly WP:AN and WP:AN/I too, but my memory is hazier there regarding who said what to who when.

For balance, I'm perfectly prepared to be a party to this case and have my conduct (at the noticeboards and WT:NOT, I've not been involved with the specific article discussions) scrutinised too, but it's worth noting that I have no clue how much wiki time I'll have between the end of this week and the new year. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie
@Sir Fozzie: If the behaviour of Eraserhead1 and Ludwigs2 et al has been similar elsewhere as their behaviour at WT:NOT (others have implied it has, I don't know), possibly. I firmly believe that the behaviour of a small number of participants has directly led to the content disputes rising to the level they have. I get the impression that without certain users the community would have been able to quietly come to consensus regarding the images at Muhammad and Pregnancy. Certainly without the IDHT at WT:NOT there wouldn't have been anything other than yet another (quietly) failed proposal to introduce censorship. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Risker
@Risker: The relevant parts of the resolution to this matter are:
 * "Wikimedia projects are not censored."
 * It's worth noting that this is expressed as an unqualified absolute.
 * "[W]e support access to information for all."
 * Again this is not qualified or limited by exception.
 * "We support the principle of least astonishment..."
 * Specifically of note is the lack of any attempt to define what expectations are "reasonable", nor anything regarding how to determine this. Which means that it is (imho rightly) left to the community to determine this on a case by case basis in accordance with the general goals and policies, etc. In the vast majority of cases this is exactly what we do quietly and efficiently, in other cases the actions of some editors inhibits or prevents this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Scope
@All arbs: In evaluating this request, you should be clear that there are two overlapping issues here. The principle overlap is the involvement of several key editors discussing similar (but not identical) issues at both places. Although it could be argued that the WT:NOT situation was a spillover from Talk:Muhammad/Images, and possibly originally was (I'm not certain on that though), it became significantly wider such that I think it's worth treating separately.
 * The content dispute at Talk:Muhammad/Images (and other articles) and the behaviour of participants there, and spill-over to other venues such as AN/I
 * The policy discussion/proposals/RfC at WT:NOT and the behaviour of participants there, and spill-over to other venues such as AN/I.

If you choose to accept the case, then I think it essential that you clearly define the scope from the outset as an arbitration focused on either individually or both together is possible. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding RfCs
To those asking for an RfC, exactly what will another RfC achieve that the existing widely advertised discussions have not? Certainly with regards to WT:NOT the RfC has been centrally advertised since 7 November, the discussion regarding Muhammed has been so well patronised that it has got its own subpage. The problem hasn't been a lack of editors, it has been the behaviour of some of those taking part - see Resolute puts it very well.

First the behaviour needs to be sorted out, then we can have productive RfCs if the issues haven't been sorted in the meanwhile. If we just have another RfC now then the only difference will be another few hundred thousand words through which to trawl to provide evidence for an arbitration case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Ludwigs2's comment to Phil Knight
And there we have the root of the issue, Ludwigs (and possibly others) will continue to battle for what they see as improving the project, regardless of any consensus that others see this as an attempt to impose censorship to enforce their POV on Wikipedia. The project space is littered with failed and rejected proposals to implement something like this for a variety of reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Answers to Roger Davies' questions
To be clear, I am approaching this matter from the angle of the discussions at WT:NOT, which is related in the manner I describe above in my comment regarding the scope of a case. I have not been involved in the discussions about images on the Muhammad article, other than as it was used in the WT:NOT discussions an as example (although some participants seemed to be viewing it as an actual consensus-finding discussion that would then be implemented).


 * to what extent will you accept as binding the outcome of an RFC?
 * I have no opinion on what specific or how many images should be used, as long as the decision is based on the educational relevance of each image and all the images collectively to the article in accordance with the "absolute and non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy and not based on offence (actual or perceived) to one or more people or groups. If an RfC were run along those lines, then I would accept whatever outcome. An RfC based on how best not to offend, how to compromise the level of offence, how much we should offend people, etc, would not be valid and so legitimately unenforceable. That's not to say I'd vandalise or anything like that, or support those who did, but I would support those ignoring the result in favour of legitimate discussion about encyclopaedic relevance.
 * given the very different constituencies likely to be viewing this article what is the line of "least astonishment" most likely to be?
 * I think FormerIP puts this best when they say that "astonishment" and "offence" are independent of one another (e.g. I'm slightly astonished we still don't have an article about runway overruns in general, but that is unlikely to offend anyone). Given that Wikipedia is an illustrated, uncensored, secular encyclopaedia that typically illustrates articles with images that are relevant to the subject, which for biographies means pictures of the person, I think that it would be astonishing if we didn't illustrate a biography of Muhammad with an image of him in the lead. Whether we have more images of him depends entirely on the encyclopaedic relevance of the available images to the topics discussed in the article; that can only be determined by editors familiar with both and I don't qualify on either count. This is no different to every other article on Wikipedia.
 * What is the rationale for the assertion that the inclusion of images of Mohammed is per se educational?
 * See also my answer to the above topic. Given that the inclusion of images of the subject of an article is uncontroversially deemed educational for every other article the question should be "Why is this article different?". I've not been party to the discussions, so I haven't seen all the arguments, but of those I am aware of there are none that are anything other than "because some followers say so", which is not a reason, in and of itself, why we've included or excluded anything from other articles about religions/religious figures.
 * is there a useful distinction to be drawn between battleground conduct over matters of fact and similar behaviour about matters of opinion?
 * I can't think of any such distinction that can be usefully made that is relevant on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison
An RfC with input from the wider community is more likely to be useful, but if the arbs want to give some guidance about appropriate use of Muhammad's image in a context of sensitivity to Islam, I'm prepared to work with that. Tom Harrison Talk 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity (mostly uninvolved)
This proposed case (as introduced by Eraserhead1) hinges on the notion that there has been a failure to compromise. There is no Wikipedia policy requiring editors to compromise. A small number of editors have been battling for many months trying to accomplish a change at Muhammad; those efforts have failed. The fact that they have been rejected does not mean those disagreeing with the proposed change are (by virtue of "failing to compromise") violating some policy or guideline. Perhaps the persistence of those wanting change is excessive and rises to the level of a behavioral problem; if it doesn't, then there's nothing but a content dispute here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
(disclaimer: I have previously been in disputes with Ludwigs, I have been trying to follow the trainwreck)

Ludwigs' campaign to remove the images has been causing lot of unproductive discussion. He keeps saying that it's not because he finds the images to be offensive, but I find that he keeps changing his arguments every time one of them is shot down. This is usually an indication of someone who covers up his authentic reasons with reasons that he makes up on the fly. This would explain all the changes in the RfC he made, and his changes of position. He is just trying to find an argument that allows him to remove offensive images without saying so.

Other editors have also been causing the unproductive discussion to drag on and on, and their behaviour could be examined. But I think that Ludwigs was the one who ignited the unproductive discussion and kept it going.g --Enric Naval (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Masem (Uninvolved)
I request that if ArbCom takes this case and look behind the behavioral problems described, that this be expanded/reviewed in light the larger problem of the conflict between WP:NOTCENSORED, the WMF resolution, and the general aspect of offensive pictures. There has been month-long (if not longer) at WT:NOT (permlink) (presently the first three sections) on trying to resolve the language of NOTCENSORED, which this case as the Muhammad images, along with other cases like Pregnancy (the use of a nude woman vs a clothed one), Goatse.cx (the use of the actual shock image in the article), and Arachnophobia (the use of a spider to demonstrate the fear). I was going to encourage at WT:NOT to have a RFC on this after the new year in a more central location as the arguments keep spinning around the same points of conflict, but if ArbCom is going to get involved to resolve the Muhammad image case, it would make a lot of sense to try to establish a precedent for all issues of controversial images.

Note that if this case is specifically limited to behavior, then please ignore this request. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hobit (involved, not a party)
I don't have time for a long statement. Briefly: I think this is a content issue and should be handled via the normal means (RfC). There is however a significant case of IDHT that could be dealt with either by ArbCom, probably better, at WP:ANI. Ludwigs2 in particular has made it clear they will keep beating the horse until they get what they want or they are presented with an argument that they can accept. "I've told people that multiple times. I'll give in the moment someone offers a convincing reason why the position I'm advancing is improper, incorrect, or unworkable." When asked accept that his position hadn't found consensus he responded with "...the intellectual relativism defense? I expected better. The fact that there is no 'correct' answer (a point I agree with) does not imply that there are no 'better' arguments, and better arguments are what are supposed to hold sway on project." Which I read as a very strong IDHT. (Sorry for the lack of diffs, search the talk page on WP:NOT.) The walls of text at WP:NOT and the article in question have been mainly due to this IDHT. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Coren
As far as I can tell, this mess can be solved without going anywhere near the substantive content issue. This is much more about some participants around the actual issue trying to shout down anyone who doesn't make an argument they accept – where "acceptable argument" is defined as "agreeing with me".

An inspection of the battlegrounds (and man, this issue has been repeatedly dredged up and dragged to every possible venue in the worst case of forum shopping in recent memory) will quickly show that there is a bit of disagreement over the substantive issues then everything gets drowned out in walls of text that amount to little but "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE SINCE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME LA LA LA!" &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(In case that's not clear, I'm recommending the committee accept the case because an RFC is doomed to be just another venue in which the same shouting match will drown out any rational attempt at discussion). &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax
I see little to aribter here. Full disclosure: on the image issue, been there, done that; and I've been tracking Ludwigs2's discussion style for over a year now and have intervened on at least 3 occasions that I recall. Overall, I'd say that if definitely Ludwigs2, and really probably Tarc, would just withdraw themselves from the current debate, it would have a good chance to settle out. Possibly they should be withdrawn by motion, but I'm not sure exactly what ArbCom would be intending to resolve beyond that. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion that ArbCom could intervene to erect some sort of binding process vis-a-vis these particular images so as to achieve a compromise is flawed. From the standpoint of those who find the images objectionable, the acceptable compromise is to have zero images. There can be no other acceptable endpoint. Kww states the case pretty well above. It is unclear how ArbCom or any other committee could arrive at some other resolution, as there will always be a fresh request to achieve a new compromise with one fewer image. We might as well just roll a single die and count the dots.
 * Jayen's proposal to rely on available secondary sources is similarly flawed, for reasons I've partly outlined here. Notwithstanding Jimbo's support for the same notion, we are not a printed source. Also, WEIGHT is purely a content issue beyond ArbCom's remit.
 * I do not see the WMF resolution on "controversial content" as applicable here, at least not in any way that would require arbitration to decide. The "conclusions" (2nd half) of the resolution contain 1) "We urge the Commons community..." - clearly not applicable to en:wiki; 2) "We ask the Executive Director..." - also clearly not en:wiki; 3) "We urge ... curating Commons..." - alos not applicable. The only possible application is from the statement of general principles, namely that of "least astonishment". It seems to me unwise, much as I do support that principle, for ArbCom to engage in a foray into application in this case, where the astonishment necessarily revolves around how surprised someone (who?) might be to find these images, which anywhere else would be considered standard.
 * Kww mentions one view, which based on observation I would largely confirm - as Ludwigs2 himself says, "it's all [my] fault". This is really the crux here, Ludwigs2 takes on dogged pursuit of certain goals, explains away opposition as due to to the intellectual failings or unconscious bias of others, shifts the goalposts when the endpoint seems unfavourable, espouses their view that they expect to be banned thus have nothing to lose, and professes to either not be able to help themselves from being uncivil or personally attacking, or variously that there is a necessity to "meet like with like" when devolving a discussion. I'm pretty confident that I could produce ample (!) diffs to support this assertion, however I'm not aware of a comprehensive RFC/U having been pursued, so again, there is no basis to move to arbitration at this point.

Statement by Lankiveil
Normally, I would view this as a relatively straightforward content issue, but having been involved for some time in the discussions around these images (although not lately, since it's just the same arguments over and over again, and my time is frankly better spent elsewhere), I'm pessimistic that a good solution can be arrived at. The crux of the problem is that a significant fraction of those involved in this discussion view any compromise as blasphemy; we are unlikely to get these people to agree to any solution short of wholesale removal of the images. Likewise, a separate significant fraction of those involved seem to be letting their Islamophobia get in the way of listening to and fairly evaluating arguments that involve any of the images being moved or removed. There are simply not enough people willing to concede ground to the other "side" to make a mutually acceptable compromise possible.

I see ruling on the content side of this issue as outside of the remit of ArbCom, and even if the case is accepted and harsh bans are handed out liberally to everyone involved, I fear it will just be a matter of days before the fight is taken up again by POV warriors from both sides.

Statement by ASCIIn2Bme
There have been numerous lame RfCs on this issue phrased in various ways, e.g.. Why do some arbitrators think another one would be any different? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the WP:V lead sentence RfC was closed as "no consensus" despite approx. 65% of participants favoring change, can you guess what the outcome of a "let's remove all images of Muhammad" RfC is going to be? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And I invite you to read Ludwig2's comment in Talk:Cat. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang
I hope the committee will give leave to an idea I have. When I filed the Abortion case, I hoped that as an outcome of the case, a community process could be created to assist in the resolution of these intractable disputes. Another dispute, Senkaku Islands also came to mind at the time, primarily because the issues have been through the DR system many times.

At the end of the Abortion case, a remedy was implemented, to create a binding discussion on the issue of the article titles, but there is still no community way to resolve these issues. Due to this, I came up with a proposal, which is at Binding RFCs. Most of the details are hammered out, but it really does need a test case, and disputes that rise to the level requiring this sort of resolution are rare, so might I suggest that the committee addresses the conduct issues here, and refers the content issue (of the inclusion of the images themselves) to a community binding RFC? Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Request to add Kww as a party
Kww has had evidence presented against him by Jayen466, and so it seems a good idea to add him as a party. In the interests of balance probably Elonka as well? Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For clarity, please propose a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. When you have done so, I will notify the other arbitrators about your request. Thanks, AGK   [• ]  23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Muhammad images
Initiated by  T. Canens (talk) at 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1, Community asked to decide issue of Muhammad images


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlanscottwalker&diff=484135884&oldid=484093685]

Amendment 1

 * Extend the deadline for appending the result of the discussion to the case.

Statement by Timotheus Canens
Making this request on Alanscottwalker's behalf, who mistakenly filed it at AE. I have no opinion on the merits of this request. T. Canens (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
This week Requests for comment/Muhammad images opened, after mediation to construct the RfC. Of course, no one yet knows what consensus may emerge, if any, but we do know that, although shorter times for leaving the RfC open were discussed during mediation, that did not gain support and it is now shceduled to last 30 days. This takes us past the deadline in the case (two months), please amend. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Copied from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=483685484] T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Silk Tork: I agree that no RfC need be open for 30 days but that's where we are with this RfC. Also, to be exact, the RFC is set for 30 days, and then a three admin close will be requested, and of course they have to take what time they need. And only then will it, hopefully, be able to be implemented (at least on the issues where they find consensus).

AGK: It would seem deadlines are good process, which I assume was the impetus behind the original (as the committee is aware it's probably not a good idea to say, 'go, as long as it takes' in this case). So amending is also good process. (feet to fire and all that) I move 30 days, addition, with automatic additions of 15 days, if progress is occurring. Hopefully, all necessary consensus will be revealed in the RfC, but if that does not occur, either a new RfC or another binding process would need to be explored (on any issues left). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dmitri is correct. I apologize if that was unclear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also see for a recent concern about a, perhaps, less than conclusive outcome for part of this RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AlexandrDmitri
It's my belief that User:Alanscottwalker's intention is more that the timeline of Remedy 1 be amended by the Committee, not that the Committee instructs the community to shorten the length of the RFC. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Whilst I have commented, I don't consider that my brief statement is grounds for recusal --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is anyone going to write a statement in opposition to this? I see no reason to alter the schedule of a functioning community process, even though it may not be going as rapidly as we'd initially asked for and hoped.  For the record, I've already made a few comments at the RfC in my individual capacity, although I don't see any reason that would or should be assumed to sway me on this amendment request. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not take part in the arbitration case, so there may be issues I'm not aware of, but as an independent arbitrator, I have no objection to extending the deadline now the discussion has started if that is seen as necessary. It should be noted that a RfC does not need to be open for 30 days exactly - 30 days is simply when the RfC bot automatically delists a RfC. A RfC can be closed before or after 30 days. However, if an RfC is seen as important or contentious, then by convention it is generally given at least 30 days, though if nobody has commented for over 7 days and there is a clear consensus then common sense suggests it can be closed. If this RfC has been specifically set up to run for 30 days exactly, then so be it. I would urge participants to reach consensus within those 30 days.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If my colleagues do not disagree, I think the complainant can take this clarification as assurance that we are happy for the RFC to run a few weeks beyond the two-month deadline. Community discussions that operate by ArbCom request inevitably take longer than expected to be completed, and this will undoubtedly be no exception. Within reason, please take as long as you need to reach a consensus. AGK  [•] 11:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take the "deadline" in the case to mean "this will not wander on aimlessly for months on end" rather than a hard cut-off. A few weeks is no big deal at all, better to get the RFC right than rush it. Courcelles 23:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Muhammad images (Anthonyhcole)
Case link: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images

Initiated by  Anthonyhcole (talk) at 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified

Statement by Anthonyhcole
Since the closure of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images, where I was heavily involved as a party and not mentioned or sanctioned in the conclusions, and the subsequent Requests for comment/Muhammad images I've edited Muhammad a few times:



and been engaged in significant constructive discussion on the talk page:


 * 1) Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26
 * 2) Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26
 * 3) Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26

A couple of weeks ago I attempted to begin a discussion about image curation on the sub-page Talk:Muhammad/images but dropped it when no one took it up. I was however advised by seven editors that I may not discuss that topic. This was not my reading of the arbitration conclusion.

A couple of days ago at Talk:Muhammad a new editor requested that pictures of Muhammad be removed from the article. Four editors responded:

Tarc disagreed with my clarification of the situation for the new editor and threatened me with arbitration enforcement if I didn't strike or remove it at User_talk:Anthonyhcole.

Could the committee please clarify for me whether there is a ban in place on discussing the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger. That's very clear, thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading all of this, particularly Qwyrxian's comment, I'm persuaded that you may be addressing a different question, and that is down to my vagueness. I'm hoping to discuss on Talk:Muhammad/images whether, in principle, some of the figurative depictions of Muhammad could be replaced by images that are as attractive and relevant, but don't depict Muhammad. You've emphasised that the RfC settled "principles". I'm wondering if one of the settled principles might actually prevent me from doing that. That may be the case. It's just not clear to me.


 * As for Mathsci's assertions, he seems to have misunderstood the situation and I've addressed that at Talk:Muhammad/images, where it belongs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: I have
 * solicited Jimbo's opinion on the outcome, to which he did not respond
 * attempted to initiate a conversation about the curation of images at Talk:Muhammad/images, seeking advice about the appropriateness of that at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee during that discussion, and now here, and
 * I responded to a request for the removal of images.
 * Don't tell me I can't solicit Jimbo's opinion on this or any other issue related to this project. If the thrust of the discussion I initiated at Talk:Muhammad/images is inappropriate, please do tell me. I can't trust the opinion of any of the editors opining here or there because most are bitterly opposed to my view. Most of them have been attacking me and telling me to shut up since I appeared on that page. (Not just me, mind you, anybody who disagrees with the view they share.) That is why I am here. Asking for your clarification. Is the thrust of Talk:Muhammad/images in breach of the arbitration conclusion, and can you make it clearer to me what is and is not an appropriate topic of discussion on that talk page?
 * I take deep offense at the implication that I inserted the image of Mahatma Gandhi for any reason but to improve the article. Would those making that claim please withdraw it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Singularity. I can't trust you because I don't have a clue who you are. Have we ever edited the same page before this? I had you, and not only you, in mind when I used "most" rather than "all" in "...most are bitterly opposed to my view. Most of them have been attacking me..." Please don't be offended. I assume the arbitrators will be able to clarify this for me. I can't assume that about you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci, you accuse me of disrupting to make a point, a very serious charge, and cite (a) me removing an image of Muhammad from the article that had been added shortly beforehand without discussion, the removal of which everybody on the talk page has agreed was appropriate, and (b) my insertion of an image of Mahatma Gandhi to illustrate a large quote from Gandhi, which most editors agree was reasonable (though most disagree with the choice). Would you please withdraw the disruption assertion? This kind of mud sticks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators. Mathsci is deliberately misleading you here. A few days ago I saw a figurative depiction of Muhammad going into the article without discussion, and accidentally removed the wrong image, which I restored 3 minutes later when I removed the correct image. Nomoskedasticity noticed the image removal today and, thinking I was being a dick deleting a long-standing image, restored it. After a little confusion, this was sorted out on the talk page at Talk:Muhammad/images and the thread was closed at 10:54. At 11:12 Mathsci said here "(Anthony's) edits currently give the appearance of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Without seeking prior consensus, he removed this image of Muhammad from the Islamic depictions section; he then attempted to remove another image  while accidentally (?) restoring the first removal." That is, 18 minutes after the talk page discussion closed, and we're all agreed I did the right thing in deleting the image but my edit summaries should have been clearer, and Nomo could have been more careful, and I've explained to everyone that the first image deletion was a mistake quickly corrected (obviously so, if you just look at the page history) Mathsci, seeing that on the surfaace my behaviour there could appear to be disruptive, knowing that it wasn't, but had the appearance of disruption, especially with his false and deceitful description, presented it to you as evidence for my disruptive behaviour. You're being conned.

This has nothing to do with this page, really. But am I meant to just let this stuff sit here? I'd actually appreciate it if an arb or clerk would delete all of the ad hominem, just leaving the question, what is and is not appropriate for discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images, but I guess that's not going to happen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the protocols of this page but, if we're done, thank you. I'll try to avoid any behaviours that can reasonably be interpreted by an intelligent informed observer as disruptive. Since no one has taken up my offer to discuss the replacement of figurative depictions of Muhammad with equally valuable other types of image, the question at the heart of this thread is moot.

Just an observation, for what it's worth. When I entered this debate, the very notion that we, Wikipedia, should take account of the offense we may cause our readers was a taboo topic. The fundamentalist WP:NOTCENSORED cult, was strident and domineering, and was deferred to by the majority who didn't challenge their orthodoxy. The Foundation resolution on controversial images gave moral strength to now-banned Ludwigs2, now-retired Hans Adler, myself and others to stand up to the essential foolishness of the doctrine "we don't care about offense." Over that six months or so, I've seen more and more highly respected editors questioning the absolute supremacy of our right to offend.

Obviously, this autistic/psychopathic orientation toward our readers (and subjects, and often each other) is a long way from being resolved, but a change is afoot. I urge you to weigh our commitment to respect for our readers, subjects and peers against our commitment to openness in all of your dealings here.

When you banned Ludwigs2 and chastised Hans Adler, leading to his departure from the project, I felt betrayed and demoralised; so much so that I essentially abandoned the RfC on Muhammad images - both the discussion around its design and the RfC itself. I now believe I let the project down there. There should have been someone with the necessary corporate memory from my side of the debate involved there, but I just couldn't bring myself to it. It breaks my heart now to look over that RfC at the arrant shallow nonsense its findings were founded on. I have been wagging the tail of that debate a bit, and I apologise for that.

The blind right to offend has won in this case, and it's won by the very tactics I laid out for you above in Mathsci's lies about my motivations. Those tactics are all over Talk:Muhammad/images and the Arbitration evidence and workshop talk pages. They work because their authors fill such pages with such walls of text that no volunteer can reasonably be expected to grasp any more than a sense from them, a sense not justified by close scrutiny.

The only way around that tactic, that I can see, is fierce curation of all arbitration and admin pages for relevance and civility. This page is a disgrace in that respect. I do appreciate the work you all do, and suggest this not as a criticism but as a way to maximise the effectiveness of your precious time here. Efforts are being made at the Fae case, and I applaud that. Please don't be discouraged by criticisms, practice makes perfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken. I do not dispute the legitimacy of the committee's conclusions or the findings of the RfC triumvirate. In fact I am on record twice congratulating the latter on the excellent job they made of an extremely taxing task, and nothing I've said here indicates that I intend to continue arguing my position ad nauseam. As far as bald faced kicks in the groin to the community go, I'll continue to speak my mind on the project's dysfunctional stance towards offensive behaviour.

@PhilKnight. Autism is a disorder that features among other traits diminished ability to appreciate offensive behaviour. Autists frequently say the most appalling things and fail to recognise, at least in the usual immediate feeling way that normal people do, the offense, or the magnitude of the offense they cause. This is considered by most people to be a seriously socially disabling impairment. Psychopaths can usually recognise when they're offending others but, lacking empathy, don't care. This project, at least until recently proudly chanted the mantra, "we don't care if we offend our readers." I believe WP:NOTCENSORED still essentially says that. (I can't bear to read that document again.) That is, a large number of vocal Wikimedians proudly assume a stance toward our readers and subjects that socially functional people consider to be both detrimental to social integration and anti-social.

I've discussed this elsewhere, so one or two of your colleagues will have known what I was alluding to with "autistic/psychopathic." It's not a throw-away slur; it's a deeply- and long-considered critique of this project. I apologise for not taking the trouble to elaborate earlier. That was thoughtless of me. But, that said, everyone is entitled to their view and if you believe I pose a threat to the project I invite you to act according to your best lights. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarc knows that I believe you don't have to be mentally ill to go along with this crazy perspective, you just need to be persuaded it's sensible. Despite this, below he says that I dismiss those who support the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED as a bunch of feeble-minded autistics. He's doing what Mathsci did, taking something a bit complicated, that superficially looks bad for me and, knowing that the truth differs from the superficial appearance, nevertheless purveys the superficial version because it looks right on a superficial reading, and realistically, very few readers are going to grasp the more subtle explanation.

I am getting so tired of this. I came here for help in understanding my obligations with regard to Talk:Muhammad/images. Feel free to initiate whatever action you believe is appropriate but do it in an appropriate forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, you assert that I am disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I refute that. What do you base that on? I have asked Jimbo's opinion of the outcome of the Muhammad images business, tried to initiate a discussion on the curation of images at Talk:Muhammad/images, with no takers, so I dropped it, explained the situation wrt figurative depictions of Muhammad to a new editor, come here asking for guidance regarding the implications of the arbitration result for the discussion of image curation at Talk:Muhammad/images, and, while here, have recommended that you exert some discipline over the pages you control. If I've missed something, please tell me.

Is it disruptive to do those things? If so, how?

You assert that I am making comments that are intended to stir up discontent. I'm not doing that. Obviously some of what I say displeases some editors but that's an unintended byproduct. The intention of each of the abovementioned actions is as stated.You offend me by your assumption of bad faith there.

You say, "when a decision is made that we disagree with, we accept it and move on". I have come here to find out what that means. Does that mean that we're not permitted to discuss the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad at Talk:Muhammad/images? If I read them correctly, at least one of your colleagues seems to think we are permitted. If that is so, what have I done wrong, exactly? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@AGK and NewYorkBrad, thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
Article talk pages are to be used for discussion on how to edit/improve the article. Anthony wants to discuss Muhammad images without any intention to improve the article. This becomes clear in this section, in particular when he says So, just to be clear, I won't be proposing that an edit actually be made to the article". It is also clear in the sardonic and tendentious way he addresses other editors.  Anthony's desire to discuss Muhammad images should be satisfied at some other location -- his own talk page, perhaps.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It works out that Anthony has edited the article, removing an image of Muhammad, with no attempt at gaining consensus first. Surely this is contrary to the outcome of the RfC.  It's becoming clear that Anthony's participation at Muhammad is not constructive.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And now it has emerged that Anthony was reverting addition of an image that was done without discussion -- though without providing any indication that this is what he was doing. So my comment immediately above can be ignored.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
I have Muhammad on my watchlist and edited it and its talk page just prior to the edit from an account (not yet auto-confirmed) requesting the removal of all images. Requests (or demands) like that occur periodically. Anthonyhcole's reply to that request is posted above. It reflects his personal point of view and not the consensus summarised by the three administrators who closed the RfC set up as a result of the Muhammad images case. As indicated by Future Perfect at Sunrise, one of the administrators involved at WP:AE, if Anthonyhcole intends to reply similarly to future requests of that kind on what he terms "curation of images", he should probably restrict such statements to user talk pages. My understanding is that the results of that RfC were intended to be considered as binding and not to be the subject of future discussion. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking further at Anthonyhcole's edits, contrary to his self-presentation here, his edits currently give the appearance of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Without seeking prior consensus, he removed this image of Muhammad from the Islamic depictions section; he then attempted to remove another image  while accidentally (?) restoring the first removal. Both edit summaries state, "Not relevant to this section, Islamic depictions of Muhammad." As Anthonyhcole clarified much later, he was removing an image added shortly beforehand by Dzlinker to the top of a different (and relevant) section; per policy, the image could have been removed on sight because no prior discussion had occurred. That is not what Anthonyhcole indicated in his edit summaries. The inclusion of an image of Mahatma Ghandi shortly afterwards seemed undue and an example of WP:POINT. Aside from the discussions on images already mentioned, the reversion of images (without a correct edit summary, such as "rv per Muhammad image policy - see Talk:Muhammad/Images") and the insertion of an image of Ghandi shortly afterwards is pushing the boundaries. Anthonyhcole edited in a way that was unclear and confusing, because of the edit summaries and lack of discussion. That made it quite difficult to tell why he was making those edits.  Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please could Anthonyhcole not edit in the arbitrator section? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From his recent editing history, it would appear that Anthonyhcole is indeed intent on making a WP:POINT. If he's going to take offence at that being pointed out, I'm not sure that very much can be done. An observation like that is not a personal attack but a comment on his editing patterns. My own advice to him is to remember what the drafting arbitrator AGK suggested during the arbcom case (if I remember correctly): editors with strong personal feelings who have become too deeply invested in the discussions are best advised to stay away from the article or discussions of the issues on wikipedia. Too much time is being wasted at present on discussions that should have been closed long ago. On the article itself, there have been far more problematic edits than those connected with images. They require immediate attention. Rehashing matters that have already been resolved is a waste of volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthonycole has suggested and continues to suggest that those who do not agree with his point of view are autistic or psychopathic. Statements of that kind are wholly unacceptable and contrary to all wikipedia policies. I hope that he is just a tiny bit aware of the problems he is creating for himself by making statements of that kind and how they might affect his future editing privileges. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement Qwyrxian
@RogerDavies: Anthonycole is not doing what you are talking about. He's talking about raising, once again, the general issue of whether any images that depict the body/form of Muhammad are educational in value. He wants to reargue the RfC. He explicitly stated that he is not proposing discussion of specific images, but rather talking in general. This is not collegial editing. Note that I even agree with much, though not all, of Anthonycole's position...but the RfC results were clear, and I accept that. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
I was on the verge of filing an Arb Enforcement over this junk, but was advised that Anthony's actions may not be quite to the level of the discretionary sanctions. IMO they are verging on the vexatious and the pointy, particularly the response to that edit request. Pardon my French, but that response was one big fuck-you to the (sizable) majority at the RfC that found the article as it exists now conforms with the principles of the Wikipedia project.

As for "image curation", this line from Anthony's comment above

says it all. How on earth can anyone think that they can reopen the same freakin argument that the RfC decided? The depictions of Muhammad presently in the article are set in stone for the forseeable future. I believe that is the interpretation that most have taken away from the RfC once it closed.

Apologies to Roger, but IMO there is no such thing as "routine replacement or updating of images" on this particular article. This is a landmine every time someone tries and it should just be left alone for a good while. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * PS - Well let me clarify that; "routine replacement or updating of images" is possible if the subject matter is 100% not Muhammad-related. Right now there is a discussion regarding the addition of a picture of Gandhi.  That sort of discussion or "curation" or whatever I think is fine, RfC-wise. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@note: IMO Anthonycole is insulting those who support the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED, e.g. the "diminished ability to appreciate offensive behaviour" line. Time and time again it has been explained that disagreeing with Anthony on how to deal with offensiveness is not the same as lacking the ability to recognize it. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
I think it's abundantly clear that Anthonyhcole's intent is to continue to discuss this until he achieves a result he agrees with. That kind of thinking is precisely why the case went to Arbcom and ultimately to an RFC. His perspective failed to achieve consensus, as did my diametrically opposed view. That doesn't matter. It's time for us all to be quiet now. At the very least, a "clarification" to Anthony that it's time to be quiet and time to stop changing the images is in order. If clarification isn't sufficient, a formal topic ban would be the next step.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
Echoing Tarc and Kww. Related to the quote of Anthony's that Tarc posted above, Anthony now seems intent on discussing the merits of adding an image of Mahatma Gandhi to this article, simply because a Gandhi quote is contained. Obvious reason is obvious: The more irrelevant or tangental (and that is charitable int his case) images he stuffs onto an article about Muhammad, the fewer relevant images directly related to the article subject can be placed. He also chose to complain at Jimbo's talk page about how the RfC went against his position in a bid to start yet another an argument over the exact same things that were consistently rejected over the course of months of discussion, multiple RFCs and the previous arbitration case. It becomes obvious that Anthony will not voluntarily drop the stick, and that he will continue to waste everyone's time until he either gets his way or is forced out of the topic area. Resolute 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Singularity42
I guess I was notified about this Request for Clarification because of this edit I made, where I (correctly, IMO) quoted WP:TALKEDABOUTIT to indicate that it may be considered disruptive to bring up a subject again so soon after consensus was determined. Generally, though, I haven't participated too much on the discussion on Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images, although both are on my watchlist.

That being said, from watching those pages I have made a few observations. Specifically, in relation to this Request for Clarification, I have observed the following recent behaviour from Anthonyhcole on the related talk pages:
 * 1) Initiate a somewhat heated discussion about alternatives to showing images depecting Muhammad very shortly after the RFC closed (see Talk:Muhammad/images).
 * 2) Respond to new editors' requests to remove images depecting Muhammad by "speaking on behalf" of the consensus that did not agree with him and assigning motives and intentions that are not necessarily true.

In relation to the first issue, I believe WP:TALKEDABOUTIT is the applicable policy. The community had a very heated debate at the RFC, with many different proposals introduced and discussed. Ultimately, a consensus was determined on May 28th. Less than one week later, and Anthonyhcole was trying to debate the issue again. He says that he was just having a conversation, and other editors are free to ignore him, but that makes no sense. The image talk page is to discuss how to improve the Muhammad article, specifically in relation to the images. It is not a forum or a place to have non-specific conversations. If Anthonyhcole is not interested in re-determining the consensus, than why initiate the conversation? If he is trying to re-determine the consensus, than I think some time should be waited until after the RFC (i.e. not a few days).

In relation to the second issue, I have no problem with Anthonyhcole (or any editor for that matter) telling a new editor that they sympathize with the new editor's request to remove the images, but that the consensus is to keep them. Where I and other editors take issue is when Anthonyhcole posts a comment like this (which Anthonyhcole quoted in his statement at the top). What ends up happenening is that Anthonyhcole claims to speak on behalf of a consensus he does not agree with and then assigns that consensus with untrue motives and intentions: When called out on these types of comments, Anthonyhcole's repeated claim is that his is just having a conversation, and we don't have to participate if we don't want to. Its this type of passive-aggresive comments that are keeping all of the other editors frustrated. Singularity42 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He claims on behalf of the community that Wikipedia does not care that the images insults the new editor. In fact, many of the editors who favour the current consensus do care, but found that it did not outweigh other principles, policies, and concerns.
 * He claims on behalf of the community that the community added the images not because it helps the reader understand the subject's life, but because we just like how they look. I don't think I have to say that that was the exact opposite conclusion the closers gave in the RFC.
 * He claims on behalf of the community that the majority of us know the new editor will be offended, knows that the images don't help the reader understand anything about Muhammad, and that we've just added the images because we want to. Again, this is completely contrary the what the consensus was at the RFC.
 * He wants to apologize on behalf of the community, but cannnot because the community is not sorry. Well, then stop trying to talk on behalf of the community.

@ Anthonyhclole:
 * 1) You say the opinions of the editors here cannot be trusted because they bitterly oppose your view. Can you please show me an edit where I have bitterly opposed your view?  I believe the reason you included me in this Request for Clarification was my one edit were I pointed out WP:CCC.
 * 2) You say most of the editors have been attacking you. Have I attacked you at all, other than (for the first time) commenting on your behaviour in my above statement? Singularity42 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Chowbok
Wow, Anthonyhcole really wants to get topic-banned. I hope somebody obliges him soon.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
This statment by Anthonyhcole, above, is significant:

"When you banned Ludwigs2 and chastised Hans Adler, leading to his departure from the project, I felt betrayed and demoralised; so much so that I essentially abandoned the RfC on Muhammad images - both the discussion around its design and the RfC itself. I now believe I let the project down there. There should have been someone with the necessary corporate memory from my side of the debate involved there, but I just couldn't bring myself to it. It breaks my heart now to look over that RfC at the arrant shallow nonsense its findings were founded on. I have been wagging the tail of that debate a bit, and I apologise for that."

In this statement the committee can see that it is Anthonyhcole's position that the results of the RfC are not legitimate -- both because he did not participate, and because it did not return the outcome he desired -- and that he intends to re-litigate it ad nauseum until he gets the results he wants. This kind of bald-faced kick-in-the-groin to the community cannot stand, and should not be allowed to go un-sanctioned, lest this issue fester forever. Many people disagreed with the results of the RfC, to one extent or another, but are willing to compromise and accept the results for the sake of collegiality and community harmony. One person's intransigence cannot be allowed to continue to disrupt the peace, when so many others have suppressed their own disagreements in the face of a community-wide decision. (There can be no legitimate argument that this particular RfC did not represent the entire diversity of community opinions.)

The committee needs to take heed of WP:BURO and deal with this case as if were an instance of an AE filing. I know of no reason why the committee, administrators all, cannot enforce their own rulings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * The question raised in this clarification request was relatively simple to begin with, and appears to have been answered in depth by several arbitrators. Therefore, this request can probably be archived in a day or two by any available clerk (barring substantial submissions by more of my colleagues). Thanks, AGK  [•] 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: the community was invited to establish principles concerning the nature and placement of images of Muhammad. Additionally, discretionary sanctions were authorised to curb fresh outbreaks of disruption. Neither of these restrict, nor are intended to restrict, collegiale discussion about the routine replacement or updating of images. Does this answer your question? Or do you have something more specific in mind?  Roger Davies  talk 07:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Roger is essentially correct, however if Anthonyhcole continues in this manner, the next stage should be filing a report at WP:AE, which would likely result in a topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthonyhcole's comment about the 'autistic/psychopathic orientation' is completely unacceptable, and I'm beginning to think that a lengthy topic ban is required. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Could the committee please clarify for me whether there is a ban in place on discussing the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad?": No such ban exists. However, if your behaviour becomes disruptive you may be appropriately sanctioned in a request for enforcement. To the other commentators, this extended dialogue is irrelevant to the question of whether Anthonyhcole is currently subject to restriction, and any concern about his behaviour should be directed to the enforcement noticeboard. In any enforcement proceedings, extensive discussion about AHCole's conduct should be avoided. Enforcing arbitration decisions on contentious articles is quite difficult enough without a crowd of editors shouting "Off with his head!". AGK  [•] 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Chowbok, I find your statement inherently unhelpful. AGK  [•] 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Per PhilKnight, a topic ban for Anthonyhcole may be appropriate. In addition to what's mentioned above, I find "...the reader's understanding of the life of the prophet (pbuh)" inappropriate.  Muhammad is not "the prophet" to Wikipedia, nor are honorifics appropriate per WP:PBUH, and the notion that Anthonyhcole brought his own conduct up himself would tend to indicate he sees nothing wrong with carrying on in such a manner on a talk page. While I applaud the religious diversity Wikipedia supports, our purpose is to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and editors who argue strenuously with the community on the basis of their own personal convictions can readily cross the line into disruptive editing--not for the use of honorifics, but for the tenacity which they strive to make Wikipedia into their own preferred image. The same could be said of any religious fundamentalist so set on one worldview that he or she strives to avoid an NPOV presentation of a topic touched on by his or her beliefs, of course. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To respond to my colleagues' points below, I do believe that any POV language, even that with benign inherent religious assumptions, is inappropriate for use in a mixed audience like Wikipedia, and that the use of such language is not in keeping with our expectations of collegiality. Asking "How can we best portray Our Lord?" on Talk:Jesus would be equally inappropriate from a Christian. We should tolerate such language from new editors, provided it is not excessively inflammatory, while educating them about the expectations of civil discourse.  But then, I believe that use of CE/BCE language is more appropriate than either BC/AD or AH dating for an NPOV encyclopedia, a view which has not been endorsed wholeheartedly by the community, per WP:ERA. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no ban on appropriate discussion, but there has long been a ban on people disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, that is either in making comments that are intended to stir up discontent, or in opening up formal procedures just to make a point. At some point each one of us on Wikipedia has disagreed with a decision made; however, the nature of the project is that it operates by consensus - it has to operate by consensus otherwise we would be forever consumed by dispute; so when a decision is made that we disagree with, we accept it and move on. I suggest you either accept the consensus or edit away from that topic if it upsets you.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that Anthonyhcole has received guidance from the comments above, although perhaps not the specific advice he was hoping for. To recapitulate, the community has decided that some images will remain present on Muhammad, and that consensus should be respected for the foreseeable future. Disagreement with the consensus may be expressed as appropriate, but in a non-disruptive and non-tendentious manner. I hope Anthonyhcole will now take this message to heart, so that enforcement action, as sought by some of the commenters and suggested by some of my colleagues, will not be necessary. On a separate point, responding to Jclemens, a believer's use of honorifics or the term "prophet" in referring to Muhammad on talkpages does not by itself, in my view, constitute a problem. As this Committee decided in a 2006 case, "Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing really more to be said, but chiming in to agree with my colleagues above, and with Newyorkbrad that collegiate talk page discussion does not require the removal or deliberate avoidance of honorifics. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad images (September 2022)

 * Original discussion

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Support
 * 1) Not used since 2016.   Maxim (talk)   12:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Primefac (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Back on the fence, I suppose. I do value the feedback below. It's also possible the DS is having a desired preventive effect, though that's more speculative, and perhaps a slippery slope. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Enterprisey (talk!) 15:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Striking per Firefangledfeathers. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There have been 2 logged actions about this. Ever. There were also 2 ARCAs about this in 2012. The fact that they are equivalent shows just how unnecessary this has proven. The sanction has been appropriately listed at WP:AC/DS and Template:Ds/alert and yet it's still not been used. All this says to me, per my comment below, that it is not an appropriate use of ArbCom's power under policy. The community can do lots of things that would not be appropriate for ArbCom to do and for me this includes passing GS that are not used. So, if the community thinks it's appropriate for this to exist it would be entirely appropriate for it to pass as GS. Given the lack of usage in general and the complete lack of usage over the past 6 years, I don't think we need to sunset this to give the community time to consider it especially because GS authorizations can happen incredibly quickly when there is consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that based on the feedback below we have 2 editors suggesting it remains necessary, 1 editor clearly saying it isn't, and 2 others supporting a gradual plan to get rid of it. So far arbs that are really considering community feedback I think it important to consider all feedback, not just those saying it needs be kept. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Barkeep, but also per the lack of use in the past 6 years specifically. --Izno (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choice to the sunset motion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per community comments. WormTT(talk) 08:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that since I'm in the minority, I should probably explain my reasoning here. Discretionary sanctions are meant as an "extraordinary" grant of power in an area that needs it. One measure of whether those sanctions are still useful is how many times they are used, and I do believe that we should spot DS areas which are not being used and remove them. However, as much as that is a tangible and numerical value, there are other ways to measure usefulness. If disruption has eased in the area, it could be that the protagonists have moved away, or the controversy has fizzled out but equally, it could be that individuals are respecting the line and simply the threat of more harsh sanctions is enough to hold a controversy at bay.
 * Since we're not on the ground and working in the area - we should absolutely listen to the administrators and editors who are - and if they say they still find it useful, I believe we should retain it. I am fully persuaded by the community comments that the controversy about depictions of Muhammad is still fresh in the real world (I mean, come on, Salman Rushdie was stabbed last week) and the crystal clear statement from Doug that he is still finds it useful.
 * Now is not the time to remove it. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Still useful, even if not used. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I respect Doug Weller's opinions, and Worm That Turned presents a good argument. - Donald Albury 17:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) This seems to be an issue of failing to properly list and advertise the DS, not that it isn't useful. Having helped deal with various floods of Islam related complaints on UTRS, I think the DS remains prescient. Given that commentators have generally asked for us to retain it, I don't see why we would get rid of it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Apologies for the 11th-hour change, this somehow slipped off my radar. These sanctions are in place because the community found the issue to be otherwise intractable. This motion was made because it appeared to the Committee that it was no longer needed, but according to members of the community it is still of concern. If the community thinks this is still an issue that requires extraordinary sanctions we should not be removing it purely because no sanctions have actually been levied. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Sunset of Muhammed images
Enacted - &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Community general sanctions have been enacted in less than a day (COVID) but generally seem to take a week or two to gain consensus. The most recent took about a month, which was the longest of any of the community GS I looked at and so I suggest twice that amount of time is more than sufficient for the community to decide to pass this if they wish. Second choice to the original motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Equal choice. In response to the comments below, I see the use of a DS regime as an exceptional measure. As there have been no logged sanctions in years, I don't believe that the situation now is exceptional enough to warrant DS. As ArbCom retains jurisdictions over previous cases, we should be able to reimpose DS by motion if the need arises.   Maxim (talk)   21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice, thanks for proposing. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) BDD (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Donald Albury 19:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Not my preferred, but since the other is stalled, support. Izno (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per my vote on the first motion. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I prefer this but still oppose per my comments on the other motion. I'd certainly have no objection to revisiting in 2 months, but would prefer not to "sleepwalk" into a mess. Perhaps the community will pick up the issue though. WormTT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) Per my comments on the primary motion, if the community thinks these sanctions are important, but it was just a case of not knowing and/or forgetting they existed, this motion has clearly brought them to light. That being said, I am of two minds here. The first is to agree with the delayed rescinding, since that gives a window of time in which editors may now either demonstrate that the sanctions are still necessary, or convert them to a community-based sanction. However, my concern is that we will simply be revisiting this in two months to rescind the motion to rescind. If this were worded more like one of our suspended cases and included a clause to cancel this motion if substantial opposition was raised I would be in support, but I cannot find enough reason to oppose entirely. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

General discussion by arbitrators

 * Am considering @Firefangledfeathers's note. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sanctions may not have been used but the topic is still an irritant to many muslims. I've handled emails at info-en on the topic in the last year. I'm unconvinced that the ability of admins to set boundaries for civil discourse on the topic is a tool which should be removed from the toolbox. Still considering the point... Cabayi (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time saying "this is still useful even if it's not used". Discretionary sanctions are an extraordinary grant of power to admins and hugely limit the community's chosen resolution processes. I can justify that in extraordinary circumstances (the behavioral equivalent of extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence). If the community decides that despite lack of use it would be appropriate to do as community authorized GS, well I have no issues with that, but cannot support subverting and interfering with community chosen processes as an arbcom except as necessary. This is in the discussion section because I have not had time to do a full examination of whether it might be appropriate with this topic. But I wanted to lay the marker out as a general philosophy for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support this, but I think there is a viable compromise suggested by Isaac: set a sunset date which allows the community time to take up the regime as General Sanctions. I would propose something like Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded, effective 1 August 2023 .... which gives the community a year to figure out what they want to do. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good compromise to me. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a version of this above. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Community discussion
I urge the arbitrators to reconsider. The 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy is still fresh. That article needed EC protection in June, which was done under ARBIPA. Other related articles have seen Muhammad-related disruption, including Aisha, Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of the Quran. All of those would not be covered by IPA or any other DS topic area. I encourage a review of Talk:Criticism of Islam for insight into the kinds of protracted disputes (sometimes leading to blocks) that have been common in the past few months. Current admin attention, by which I mainly just mean, has been invaluable in keeping discussion reasonably civil.

Unlike some of the recent DS topic areas considered for rescindment, this area does have editors made formally aware. 12 DS alerts have gone out since the case, with four (1, 2, 3, and 4). One was done by me. 25 users have declared awareness of the topic area using the ds/aware template (2 blocked, 1 me).

Admittedly, this is a DS topic area which needs more clerical attention, in that many affected articles and interested editors have not been tagged or alerted. I suppose the strongest counterargument I can imagine is that it appears regular admin action and DS enforcement from other topic areas has been sufficient to fight this ongoing disruption. To me, there's evidence that this DS topic area has been contributing at least a small amount to the fight—enough, I think, to outweigh the burden of one additional topic area in the lengthy list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC) inserted text 16:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * For what is it worth, I was the one who alerted the Arbitrators to this as I noticed it's had barely any sanctions under the provisions of the case for the ten years it's existed, with no logged sanctions for six years, no entry on the DS logging page since 2017, and no entry at WP:General sanctions - a situation very similar to the state I found the TM case's DS in. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jéské Couriano. I agree those are all good reasons to support rescinding the remedy. In general, I support review of the topic areas and removal of ones that aren't needed. When TM DS was rescinded, no alert had been given in the topic area in over two years. No sanction would have even been possible, except against those named in the original case or those who'd already been sanctioned; some ds/aware users might have been sanctionable, but I am no longer able to tell who. I think this case's recent alerts, flare-up in disruption, and topic-adjacent admin action justify some caution here that would not have been warranted in the other recent cases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed; this seems like a situation where the DS was forgotten about and people ended up looking for the closest peg to fit the square hole. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove this DS. As one of the editors involved in this area I find it useful. Doug Weller  talk 08:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can a discretionary sanctions regime be useful if no sanctions are given out in years? I find myself at an odd sort of impasse. Had there been no DS regime in place already, would we be talking about imposing one? But, given that one already exists, perhaps it's better to leave if there are (a) some formal awareness notices given out, and (b) some use of DS that could have fallen under the scope of this regime, but went under a different one. At this point, I find myself ever so slightly leaning towards rescinding but that vote is not yet set in stone whatsoever.  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think part of it is that the regime isn't listed on WP:GS, which might explain it's seeming lack of use. While this wouldn't necessarily help with it actually being used it'd at least make people working in the topic area aware that yes, this is A ThingTM and that there should be less tolerance for provocative and wilfully-ignorant behaviour. Hell, the 2022 remarks controversy article above doesn't even have a MI DS tag, so it's not entirely clear the DS is actually in effect there. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the difference is supposed to be between WP:GS and WP:DSTOPICS, but this is what I found:
 * The table at WP:GS lacks any mention of the sanctions on Climate change, Editing of WP:BLPs, and Muhammad images.
 * The table at WP:GS lists Antisemitism in Poland as a "Special DS", whatever that means, but WP:DSTOPICS doesn't list anything like that (unless I missed it).
 * So WP:GS is not just a rehash of the list of active discretionary sanctions, but I don't know what purpose the list is supposed to serve that's different from the list at WP:DSTOPICS. Philbert 2.71828 01:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, it’s not in Twinkle or have I missed it? If not, no wonder it’s not used. I know the covid DS isn’t in Twinkle either, but that’s an obvious one. Doug Weller  talk 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just found the problem in the script. Line 43 defines what the script recognizes as a DS topic code -- importantly, the code is limited to being between 1 and 4 characters. The code for this one is "muh-im", which is six characters, so the script doesn't see it. Same goes for "iranpol". You can see this by going to and pasting in the top box +.{1,4}=)/g and pasting the contents of Template:Ds/topics into the "test string" box. Unfortunately, @Bellezzasolo, who maintained the script, looks to be much less active than before (though we always hope to see them around). Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Howdy. I'm one of the Twinkle maintainers. Just a quick note that I think you're talking about User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb, which isn't technically Twinkle, it's a user script that uses Twinkle's menu and interface. I would love for the maintainer of that one to come back and work on it, it's definitely a useful script. I have a couple open bug reports at User talk:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am still around, although with a job in software user scripts can get a bit samey...
 * I think there was a technical reason for restricting the tag to 4 characters, with longer tags capturing more than just the tag. I think a lazy capture group would sort that issue. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  23:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We could also add shortened topic codes. I brought this up at the DS template talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As per Barkeep49's comments, I suggest that if the arbitration committee were to rescind its authorization for discretionary sanctions in this area, it could specify a future date when the authorization ends. This will allow the community the chance to authorize discretionary sanctions in replacement, should it wish. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is a fair point by Isaacl. While I personally am reticent to think it should, I think their overarching reason of giving time for community consideration in edge cases of DS removal is a reasonable one. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As a someone who came from Muslim-majority country, I oppose the removal of this DS, even if it is rarely used. As far as I know, Wikipedia has long avoided big controversies sorrounding Islam which is a little bit of a miracle, considering other big sites like YouTube or video games like Fortnite wasn't able to avoid the controversy. If Wikipedia were to be put in this position, it could have a lot of implications especially with authorities in countries like Pakistan, or even Indonesia, for example. We should avoid this risk, or it is going to be a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that doesn't stop us being the target of manufactured controversy. Still, if there's support for keeping this around, at a minimum I'd support figuring out a way to make it more visible than it has been. It seems to me like a lot of the "inactivity" is more just a collective amnesia that this sanctions regime even exists. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen, the controversy almost got major figures talking about it, which could have made this issue spread like a wildfire. Luckily, we got this solved VERY quickly, or otherwise it would have been a PR disaster. MarioJump83 (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have personally never made use of the Muhammad DS because (1) I somehow assumed that it was limited to Muhammad images and didn't realize that it covered "all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted" (mea culpa), (2) it's not listed at General sanctions (why?!), and, (3) since I usually admin Islam-related articles that are also related to South Asia, I have access to WP:ARBIPA instead. But despite Muhammad-related articles not being a focus of my activities, even I have come across situations where the DS would have been useful had I been aware of it. To give a concrete example: the on-wiki disruption related to the (real-life) 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy spread to the Aisha article (see the recent uptick in activity at both the, already semi-protected since 2014, article and its talkpage; including by members of the Souniel Yadav and SherylOfficial sock farms). While it could have been a stretch to add the ARBIPA to Talk:Aisha, the Muhammad DS talk notice should have been added and the availability of the Muhammad DS could potentially have helped around the margins.
 * I wonder if the Muhammad DS isn't being used more because of a lack of awareness/proper documentation rather than a lack of need. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare I'm convinced that's the case. I don't want to be a pain, but how  much weight have you given to this? Again, as it wasn't in Twinkle I didn't know it existed. It's clear I'm not the only one. I don't see what harm it can do to keep it.  Doug Weller  talk 07:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sanction has been appropriately listed at the two places I see as the committee's responsibility to maintain: WP:AC/DS and Template:Ds/alert. The fact that the community never saw fit to update other places says to me how little value was seen for it in general. The issues above doen't seem to have made its way to a conduct noticeboard (where not for nothing the existence of this ds may have been mentioned) which suggests to me that the issues are not so troubling that admins can't address it through normal, rather than extraordinary, processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a pain, thanks for the ping. Adding to what Barkeep said, I'm sympathetic to the community not realizing this was an option, but I believe the maintenance of this regime is better left to the community than arbcom. Even if the community were widely aware of it, I doubt it would be commonly used (compared to other DS regimes) and it has large overlap with much broader DS areas like IPA and PIA. The harms in keeping it are, partly, why it wasn't part of twinkle: when a DS regime is barely used and not particularly consequential, it gets overlooked or forgotten because each additional regime adds to the overhead. There are also issues which Barkeep raised regarding the subversion of typical community resolution. DS authorizes quite extraordinary interventions from administrators, and we should maintain them only where obviously needed to deal with high volume and complex issues. I'm not convinced these incidents couldn't have been handled by regular community processes, and we should prefer community-maintained resolution systems whenever possible.Going beyond the issues with keeping the DS regime out of an abundance of caution, I think making extension a community decision will have additional benefits. There is clearly some disagreement about the usefulness of this regime, and I would rather the community discuss and come to a consensus on that; I don't see this as so controversial that ArbCom needs to be the one calling the shots. That discussion will give everyone a chance to re-evaluate what the disruption looks like today (as opposed to years ago), and lead to changes that would improve the regime rather than simply keeping it around, and this would include how it should interact with the broader ArbCom DS regimes in terms of scope and restrictions. And ultimately, I think it's a good thing that ArbCom gives control of regimes back to the community; we sometimes assume GS sanctions, but I don't think that power should only flow one way. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has edited in the topic area, and been excruciatingly involved in discussions, such as about the Muhammad images, I would oppose removal of the DS. Even if it hasn't been used specifically for a block or official warning, it's useful in casual conversation to mention it, to try and lower the heat in a conversation. There are still regular reverts going on regarding PBUH, so the area is not entirely stable. To remove the DS, and then say that the community needs to re-discuss things to get a new sanction, is kind of terrifying. Previous discussions of this nature were so hot that they took literally years to try and craft a consensus. We do *not* need to re-open that can of worms (no offense, WTT). In other words, I'm of the opinion of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Please leave the sanction in place. --Elonka 06:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)