Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence

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

Overarguing
If continually making the same point over and over is to be considered problematic by itself then there are plenty more people guilty (probably including myself) than just Ludwigs. Does the committee feel that such behaviour is generally problematic? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already put my view forward on the workshop, but I will reiterate. Unless an aspect of the issues is raised that was not previously covered, or a party's position on one of the issues is misrepresented, extended repetition of the dispute in this case is of limited value. AGK   [• ]  13:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that makes IDHT behavior win-win. All an editor (editors) has (have) to do is refuse to acknowledge anything that the other side is saying: if the other side doesn't give up they can be accused of tendentiousness, and the editors with their fingers in their ears get what they want no matter how idiotic it is.  I get that there are editors who want to turn articles like Muhammad into huge King of the Hill games where they fight their way to the top and then put all their energy into repelling invaders, but that is not how a collaborative encyclopedia should work.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, no. A proposal was made to remove more images, but the proposal did not gain consensus with the editors who have been involved in the discussions.  Just because your proposal was not agreed to does not mean that it was not heard, IDHT doesn't have the slightest bit of applicability to those who disagreed with you.  That is the heart of this case; your behavior when it was clear that the proposal was not going to be accepted. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, I am suggesting that you all stop debating the issue in the context of workshop discussion and related processes. I'm not very interested in whether certain workshop or evidence submissions constitute what you frame as "IDHT behaviour", but rather that the committee has a chance to evaluate the dispute without wading through unhelpful peripheral debate. Such debate is of little value not because it rebuts the workshop proposal, but because the nature of the submissions mean that any replies must be a rehash of the NOTCENSORED dispute. AGK   [• ]  15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AGK: I totally agree with that statement, I just don't think it's feasible. I mean, look at Tarc's post immediately above: So long as he continues to insist that he has an unquestionable consensus, Jayen, Eraser and I are obliged to remind him him that does not.  It's one thing for an editor to offer a perspective on a dispute (that can be left to stand or fall on its merits), but quite another for an editor to deny that there is a dispute because anyone who disagrees with him is wrong by definition.


 * If you'd like to offer some decent guidelines for argumentation, that would be cool (I can do it for you if like - I know a lot about that topic), but the problem on this article all along has been that one side has been trying to dictate their perspective as indisputable fact, and there's no more reason to do allow them to do that here than there was on the article itself. -- Ludwigs 2  15:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@AGK, thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Eraserhead1's evidence
In his evidence, Eraserhead claims that there is "clearly not a strong consensus in favor of the status quo." This is not how Wikipedia works. When there is an ongoing discussion about making a change to an article, consensus is determined regarding the change, not the status quo. There is no need to develop a strong consensus in favor of the status quo; instead, there would need to be a reasonably strong, policy-based consensus in favor of the change to implement it. In this situation, a no-consensus situation will result in the status quo remaining. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. part of the argument here is that the status quo is actually against policy and the founding principles of the project.  No one in favor of the status quo wants to hear that, obviously, but if true then the status quo should be vacated with prejudice.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating this claim as if doing so will magically make it true. Resolute 17:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I keep repeating it as if doing so will magically make you understand. The truth of it isn't really in question.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone acting in good faith can seriously believe that a point which has generated half a million words of discussion has a strong consensus behind it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Redacted)
 * Again, discussions of this nature are not very helpful. Please ensure the only suggestion you make that a party has misconducted him or herself in this dispute is in an evidence submission or workshop proposal. If you need to rebut an allegation, then fine, but do so briefly and without extensive commentary. To be clear, if a party rebuts such an allegation, it would be inappropriate for a threaded discussion to emerge, and there should be very limited further replies; when a dispute reaches arbitration, the only people to be judging the merits of these allegations should be the arbitrators. I would remind the parties that the time of members of the committee is limited, and it is our policy to respond to useless, extensive bickering with bans from the case pages (with enforcement blocks by the clerks) - not to repeatedly ask for calm. Thank you in anticipation of your understanding and compliance. AGK   [• ]  22:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was really just joking around, but I've struck it regardless. -- Ludwigs 2  23:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the archives of Talk:Barack Obama, there are nearly 40 archived discussions that mention "birthplace". The amount of words tenacious (or tendentious) editor(s) choose to spend on a topic is not necessarily evidence that consensus is lacking.  In this specific case however, I would agree that the number of words spent and the number of forums shopped has shown without a shadow of a doubt that there is no consensus for the change that some editors want. Resolute 00:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What you would do in the case of Obama is to produce a list of sources like this one showing how reliable sources describe Obama's birth and you would almost certainly find that any objections to him being born in the US turned out to be WP:FRINGE. Then ultimately you would be able to start to block users who disagree on WP:IDHT grounds. If you produced a similar such list for Muhamamd you would actually find the a decent number of reliable sources fail to include depictions of Muhammad as has been found so far, so the cases aren't directly comparable. Even given those points of strength it would still be dishonest to describe the position around Obama as a "strong consensus" as there is significant disagreement about it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there going to be an RfC?
Is there going to be an RfC? Or will the entire case be handled through arbcom? Jsolinsky (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're in a position to say quite yet. The case is still in the evidence phrase, and will be for one or two more weeks: the target timetable was extended by a week at each phase to accommodate the arrival of this year's new arbitrators. AGK   [• ]  03:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Article history
Looking at Eraserhead's evidence, one striking (if unsurprising) aspect of the article's development is that the number of Muhammad images increased sharply after the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. On the day the cartoons were published, there was one (veiled) image in the article. As the controversy played out, and feelings about the controversy ran high, so increased the number of images, and the number of editors (on both sides) who only edited the article to either remove or add/restore images. -- J N  466  02:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * IIRC I was not involved in either article at the time, but I'd say the Jyllands issue called attention to a rather bland, boring, and ugly article. Our articles progress and evolve other time as we attract and retain editors with skills in prose and image placement/style.  If you are suggesting that the article as it is now is worse than the 2006 version, I'd say that claim is directly contradicted by it meeting the "Good Article" threshold on 5 July 2008. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet since the article met the good article threshold the number of images per word of content has increased by 25% and the number of unveiled images has increased by 67%. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but there's still a green plus in a circle at the top-right of Muhammad the addition of images has not affected its GA standing. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That could well be sheer inertia. The point at where it was reviewed by an uninvolved individual was in July 2008. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why you believe "images per word of content" is a useful metric by which to measure this article? Further, could you explain why you believe that the change over time actually constitutes evidence of a problem.  Do you not think it possible there might have been too few such depictions in previous versions?  (Also, point of order: my original proposal would have had five depictions, three of which were not defaced, but given an overall reduction in images would have been roughly proportionate to the current balance.) Resolute 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I too do not understand this metric. If the principle is that depictions of Muhammad are wrong to use per se then it really doesn't matter whether it's one image or twenty because any is too many.  If, on the other hand, depictions of Muhammad are ok to use, then it doesn't matter, per se, whether it's one or twenty because using the images isn't a problem .  Whether there are too many images in general is a completely separate issue from this debate.  Indeed, if the entire issue, from the beginning, was that there were too many images in this article, then it likely would have been a small talk page discussion on removing a certain few.  The problem arose when the main arguments for removal were based around their offensiveness (and not, for instance, the aesthetics of the article).   N o f  o  rmation  Talk 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The point of the evidence (and the latest addition on comparisons to some featured historical biographies since your comments) is to counter the point significant amounts of compromise has already been undertaken. While there isn't necessarily a conduct issue around that per say it is rather surprising, given the length of the dispute, that some sort of compromise, such as the one Resolute proposed, wasn't undertaken long ago.

While you may have a bunch of people complaining and saying all the images should be removed, they may well in reality be prepared to accept a compromise on it, and the very strong disclaimer boxes will probably persuade all but the most extreme not to comment on the matter.

The reason I have compared the depictions per 1000 words is because as the article size increases you would perfectly reasonably expect the absolute number of depictions to increase. While comparing simply the absolute number of images might make my point better, and paint the other side as being more unreasonable it wouldn't be statistically sound, and I'm not prepared to do that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that your first table actually doesn't counter any single aspect of my claim. It fails to show that the number of images is not low compared to what one might expect from a typical well developed bio (doubly so when comparing what is available to what is actually used).  It fails to show that the location of said depictions is not usual and it fails to show that using calligraphy instead of a depiction is not unusual.  Consequently, I stand by my assertion that the existing balance already reflects a compromise. Resolute 20:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolute, if this wasn't an issue then we wouldn't be discussing this. With regards to my evidence it certainly shows that no attempt has been made to compromise since the start of 2007 and it also shows that the number of images isn't outside normal bounds for such a biography, which given a significant majority of the audience interested in him doesn't use depictions at all seems really rather odd. I do accept that the fact that the lead image is not a depiction is an earlier compromise, as that is clearly unusual in biographies as you can see from my evidence. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, your assertion lacks validity. Or, please show me that the lead image of this article is not unusual as compared to other biographies and that the location of the depictions within are not unusual.  Also, you are saying it is "not outside normal bounds" as compared to a very small, possibly hand picked group of articles, which even still shows that the number of depictions is very low.   The issue here is not a lack of compromise, but your own unwillingness to acknowledge that this article has been treated unusually. Resolute 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolute, as you can see from my above comment I agree with you that the lead image is unusual. With regards to hand picking to prove the point, well you can believe that if you want, but that isn't actually what I did. I've asked AGK whether I can extend the evidence to include all figures with a featured article who died in or before 1840.
 * Even so the fact that there hasn't been a compromise since 2007 inside the article itself is still a fact and if you really believed my evidence comparing Muhammad to other articles contained invalid data you could gather your own sample. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have got some more data. Great! -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Actually NoFo, that's not true - from the very beginning I wanted to discuss the relative merits of the images (which explicitly implies the possibility that useful ones would remain), and was met with as many as seven editors telling me in no uncertain terms that no images would ever be removed. The problem here was not that anyone on my side of the debate wants to remove all the images, but rather than several editors on your side considered even one removal too much.  do you need diffs of this, or will you accept it for the purpose of this discussion?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw things differently my friend, but I suppose that's why we're all here now isn't it? What ever the "truth" is, hopefully arbcom will figure it out in the end. May I recommend though that those diffs be put in your evidence section?  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 01:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * hopefully so. and I may include those diffs, yes (but only as explication; I'm really not interested in climbing on the ad hominem bandwagon)  -- Ludwigs 2  01:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, your own statement at the very start of this shows you are lying. Your arguments never "explicitly impli[ed] the possibility that useful ones would remain". They were, in fact, very clearly, and very obviously of the viewpoint that "Muslims are offended, Islam prohibits them, we need to remove all depictions":, , , , , , etc., etc., etc. Resolute 02:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude, this is the story you've been spinning all along to try to make me look bad, but it's complete tripe. Anyone who bothers to read the diffs you've presented will see me asking that the images be evaluated on their worth.  Yes, it is true that  I personally think the images are more or less valueless (and that comes through in what I wrote), but I am not asking to have them all removed, simply that they be looked at and discussed.  Look at the last diff you present in which I say "If they have value, please specify what that value is.  simple enough, yah?  I'll be waiting for a response."  That was an honest question even then, and in fact I am still waiting for you to give a decent response to it.


 * I do understand: you need to cast me as unreasonable, because getting me in trouble administratively is the only tool you have that can possibly win this debate. In a straight, simple, rational discussion you'd have lost the game a month and a half ago and we wouldn't be here. But instead you just keep spewing out this baseless innuendo as though it matters, or as though anyone actually cares.  That kind of behavior is simply and thoroughly reprehensible, so stop it before I lose what little respect I have left for you.  Clear?
 * It was a sarcastic question made by one who had already ignored statements by others on value. The truth is, there will never be an answer that you consider a "decent response", because every answer anyone has given is somehow never good enough. That is why I call bullshit on your claim that you always intended to evaluate images on their worth. Your own statements make it patently clear that you consider the images as having no worth because they are offensive to some adherents of one religion.  And the truth is, I don't need to cast you as unreasonable.  You accomplished that by yourself, as noted by several parties to this case and more than one arbitrator in the case request page. It is cute that you are trying to change your story in an effort to fool people into thinking you are actually a reasonable party here, but all you are managing in the end is to make even more obvious your essential dishonesty that is the central cause of this ridiculous drama. Resolute 03:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, all I can say is that if you were considering quitting your day job to become a professional mind-reader, don't. You're lousy at it.  My behavior here and many places elsewhere shows that I am more than willing to discuss and compromise (I even supported your compromise proposal, if you remember).


 * But I'll prove my point the easy way, with a bet. We both make the following promise - to sit down and discuss the issue together without anything remotely resembling an ad hominem or personal attack (as judged by the arbiters).  First one who breaks that rule voluntarily leaves this arbitration and leaves all Muhammad-related articles permanently.  let's see how we each fare when we have nothing except reasoned discussion to work with.  Are you up for it?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mitt, is that you? Srsly guys, rehashing he last months' debate isn't helping matters here any. Spike your eggnog and chillax for a few days. Tarc (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True enough. I suspect I need only to wait this one out. Resolute 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * lol - that's what I figured your response would be. So, go on back to your efforts at character assassination.  The offer will remain open if you ever want to take me up on it, but I trust that I have proven my point.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I'm still waiting on the presentation of your evidence so that we might see what the likelihood of "reasoned discussion" really is. Resolute 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you're waiting for my evidence not for its content, but primarily so you have ammunition to make assertions about my psychology? -- Ludwigs 2  12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1's second evidence table (extended)
FWIW, here are some more featured articles that have relatively few depictions:

Muhammad is nowhere near 3 standard deviations from the mean, whether with 3 or 6 images. ;) -- J N  466  01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are going to take examples from the photographic era (>1840) then we need to consider these examples as well. I think that is unwise as it brings issues that don't apply to Muhammad, namely copyright and photographs to the table. Therefore only El Greco and Joseph Priestley "count" (and I've moved them up). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Note that there's 24 images in Muhammad at last count. -- J N  466  12:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Question for ASCIIn2Bme
ASCIIn2Bme has just posted #Anthonyhcole contradicts himself on Ludwigs's disruptiveness on the evidence page. Where does Dec contradict Nov, ASCIIn2Bme? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On December 11 you stated things this way on WP:AN: Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So? On 27 December Resolute accused him of tendentious editing, WP:NPA, WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE. I refute that. In the diffs you present, as well as in this case, I accuse him of violating ABF and ceaselessly bickering. He's wrongly being accused of lots of policy violations that I see no evidence of - at least not enough to warrant sanctions - but he is very very guilty of forever bickering with people who bait him, and responding to ABF with ABF. That's the problem. Don't confuse these with WP:NPA, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE or WP:TE. They're different things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you're one of the very few who actually thinks he was baited. The more common take is that he is the prime instigator that provokes and elicits frustration in others. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When Ludwigs2 brought the Foundation resolution to Talk:Muhammad and suggested it likely applies to image use in that article, he was met with a great deal of rudeness and, frankly, ignorance. Resolute accused him of some unspecified bias, Kww opined that it's only Muslims that are upset, Blade explained that he has no problems with the images and no one has a right to walk through life unoffended, Doc Tropics explained that Ludwigs is assuming all our readers are Muslims, and Kww falsely accused him of impugning the motivation of editors. Edit summaries include rubbish and wasting time.


 * And that is typical of the treatment he has received there all along. Just dip randomly into any section of Talk:Muhammad/images where Ludwigs2 is posting. He responds, in his pedantic, tenacious way, and won't resist having the occasional swipe at you, which you all earnestly deserve, and then you all go tumbling off on some pathetic tangent, and that's the end of another thread. I can't bear it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Falsely accused"? Ludwigs2 frequently makes blanket accusations claiming that his opponents are motivated by the desire to offend Muslims or marginalise them. I, for one, don't desire to offend Muslims. I don't particularly care if someone takes offense at something for religious reasons, but I don't go out of my way to offend them either.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the primary concerns of this case are recurring issues of conduct. These issues are quite separate from discussions of content. Poor conduct has a knock-on effect on everybody concerned, whatever their stance or motivation. It deters participation. It would probably be useful if Anthonyhcole could explain on these case pages, in his own words without reference to the commentary of others, why he became so exasperated in the last month or so that he penned those diffs.  Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above pretty much answers your question. Ludwigs won't ignore insults, ignorance or innuendo, he takes it on, mostly with politeness and sound reasoning, and, occasionally gives some back, but it almost always ends up ruining any chance of progressing the main thread. I generally meet vile behaviour with silence. . --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A polite reply or no reply at all is the correct response. Mathsci (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where am I being impolite? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere: this discussion is not about your conduct. Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Actually, this discussion is about my alleged inconsistency. But thanks for clarifying. I completely agree with you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I meant there. But I take it that you agree that it is better for an editor to disengage when the alternative is a futile personalized argument creating more heat than light. Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply
At Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australians
Aboriginal Australians also have some taboos around depiction (of the deceased), but are obviously less well represented than muslims on wiki. It's worth bearing in mind that whatever solution is here, similar issues will apply to quite a few biographies of dead persons. --99of9 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK They only have issues with depiction of the deceased when they are dead, not when they were alive. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in my understanding. Here's what Wikipedia's got on it Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices, but obviously we could do better than that. --99of9 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to clarify this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the particulars of their beliefs are, honestly. That is the entire point of all of this; we cannot expect the project to jump every time Culture A or Religion B or Sect C says "boo". Tarc (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tarc on this. It doesn't matter at all. The name of a person, or a photo of them, especially if they're the subject of an article, are essential content, and will always be included in Wikipedia articles. No one in this discussion would oppose the inclusion of a photo or an accurate likeness of Muhammad being included in Muhammad, if one existed, regardless of the objections of Muslims. Tarc mischaracterises the "entire point", though; the dispute over image use is about use of images where they both (a) offend many of our readers and (b) add nothing to the reader's understanding of the section they illustrate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd actually quite like to know the answer! -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's something to read, and here's a summary: "the widespread prohibition among indigenous people on displaying images of the dead or naming them during periods of mourning". --99of9 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been wondering about that for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to know that you feel free to offend one religious group based on Wikipedia editorial practices, Anthony. If we reject the images of Muhammad on these grounds, we need to start a Wikiproject that constantly patrols our imagery and removes and suppresses them based on any religious objections we are aware of. After all, it really won't hurt us to not have any images of a person for a period of a few years after their death, would it? That's at least as reasonable as objecting to pictures of seventh-century rulers.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been clear enough. Most editors here instinctively apply the doctrine of double effect to offensive content curation. To justify an act involving both a good and a bad effect, four conditions are necessary: the act must be good overall or morally neutral, the person acting must intend only the good effect with the bad effect as an unwanted side effect, the bad effect must not be the cause of the good effect, and the good effect must outweigh the bad. Just as an oncologist who intends to treat cancer may foresee but not intend the nausea and other effects of chemotherapy, so an editor inserting images that really add to the reader's understanding of the section may foresee but not intend offense.


 * To be ethically justifiable, the good has to outweigh the harm. Illustrating a section with an image of Muhammad or a recently-deceased Australian aborigine, when an image of a landscape or of another aborigine would be just as informative wrt the topic of the section, is unethical. Illustrating a section discussing Islamic depictions of Muhammad with depictions of Muhammad would really add to the readers' understanding of the section topic, so one must exercise judgment there. Does it add sufficiently to the readers' understanding to justify the offense caused. Personally, as you well know, I believe in most cases it does. Applying that principle, I would, on request, replace or remove the image of a recently deceased Australian aborigine from an article where another picture or no picture at all would be just as educationally useful. But, I wouldn't remove the image of Charles N Perkins from Charlie Perkins because that would be removing a picture with real educational use from the article. That is, I'm prepared to respect the religious, sexual and violent sensibilities of our readers only so long as it doesn't significantly compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.


 * I apologise if I've already said this next bit to you (I've said it a couple of times to others.) The Harrises use "controversial content" to include offensive images that disaffect large groups of people - an identifiable social phenomenon. They're not recommending we jump every time someone claims they're upset by balloons. They're recommending we (urging us to) pay particular attention to the curation of sexual, violent and religious content that is offensive to identifiable large groups, wrt real educational use and the principle of least astonishment. That is not opening the floodgates, as your slippery slope argument asserts, it is just what reliable sources do all the time. It does limit the number of gratuitous tits and bums and other offensive material we host, but at no loss of integrity to the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, I do not claim "slippery slope". I never have. What I say is that it is unacceptable to provide unequal treatment to different religious groups. If you take religious offense into account, take it into account. Don't take it into account when it's convenient and ignore it when it isn't. Respecting the Sunni objections to images of Muhammad creates a moral obligation on our part to remove all images that offend all religious groups, because to do otherwise is to elevate Sunni Islam above those other groups.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like who, for example. Can you give me some examples of who would be lining up demanding we remove what kind of images? Can you point me to the talk pages of articles where these superstitious hordes are demanding we remove pictures? More particularly, can you point me to instances of religious offense where we'd be likely to remove images, by applying either the principle of double effect or JN's formula of following the sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should we have to be asked? Can you argue that knowingly creating an imbalance is OK so long as the groups that you are ignoring are small and/or quiet? We know, for example, that the Wahhabi object to depictions of living things. Why is deferring to the Sunni without deferring to the Wahhabi not a problem? Temple garments and Endowment (Latter Day Saints) have long been controversial over similar topics. I will note that your "principle of double effect" is a personal notion, JN's notion of "following sources" is a grievous misapplication of NPOV, and the Harris report/WMF recommendation is in the process of being soundly rejected by the community.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Amplifying: every single image in Just Dance (song) is offensive to the Wahhabi. Every single one. None of them make me understand the song any better. What justification do we have for keeping them?&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't respond to Wahabi's concerns about depictions of living things, because that would impose too big a burden on the encyclopedia. The harm would outweigh the good. What harm would removing the black stone image from Muhammad do? It adds nothing whatever to the readers' understanding of the section. As for temple garments, are there pictures of temple garments somewhere in the encyclopedia where their use adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the section? If so, they should be removed. Is that it? Wahabis and Mormons? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They're sufficient, and no, it's not a complete list. As for the Black Stone image, it would do no benefit to the encyclopedia to remove them, and it would be an implementation of a biased editorial policy to do so. That's harmful to the encyclopedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This problem, the slippery slope of "where will it end?" is a fiction; and removing educationally useless offensive images would have only one effect on the encyclopedia, we would reduce the amount of gratuitous offense we engage in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Given all other religious figures on Wikipedia use imagery from their respective religions why would it be harmful to the encyclopaedia to use depictions as they are used by the religion itself in the case of Muhammad. Given as Johnbod has said that calligraphy is much more common that the miniatures we use now what justification is there for including far more minatures than calligraphic representations of Muhammad? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Muhammad was an actual person, not simply an Islamic belief. "... by the religion itself ..." is an argument that has merit with respect to articles like Thor and Jesus Christ, but not with respect to actual people.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So were the Sikh gurus, Confucious and the Buddha (his birthplace is a world heritage site) and a lot of scholars believe Jesus was real too.
 * All those other figures still include most of their imagery from members of the given religion.
 * And Muhammad's depictions are almost exclusively by Muslims too. Just not remotely in proportion to their actual usage. What's the encyclopedic merit of that? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never said that Islamic depictions should be excluded, just that religious objections to a class of images should be ignored, and that the images in the article should receive no special scrutiny because of those objections. My concern isn't the justification of any particular image, it's ensuring that the selection process ignores religious beliefs.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kww, no one's suggesting we do what we're told by this or that religion. That would fail both the principle of double effect, and the Foundation's guideline. Removing the Black Stone image from Muhammad looks the same whether we're (1) obeying mullahs or (2) respecting the feelings of our readership at no cost to the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's the intention that counts. One is an act of censorship, the other is an act of respect. One harms the encyclopedia's integrity, the other makes it a friendlier, more accessible encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you even need to go that far on offense and we can just look at editorial concerns. An Infobox depiction can be justified because it's standard, a depiction in the "Islamic depictions" section can be justified because Islamic depictions exist and one in the western section can be justified on the grounds that Westerners have fairly often depicted Muhammad (though there probably should be some calligraphy too).
 * In the article as a whole you can justify 1-2 depictions out of 8 on the grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED and that Islamic depictions exist.
 * Any more than the three depictions from my first paragraph can as far as I can see only be justified on the grounds that our readers prefer "traditional" art. This is because it isn't close to how Muslims depict Muhammad and that all our religious figures primarily include art from that religion. Frankly I doubt that is even true that this articles readers prefer traditional art here and the encyclopedic justification (I.e. our readers like pretty pictures) is damn weak at best. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply wierd! What 8 images? There are 6. There are far, far fewer depictions of M in Western art than Islamic art, until you get to modern illustration, and most are intended to be insulting. This is like Anthony Cole, who proposed illustrating what is very probably the only full-length staue of M ever made anywhere, and so the only example of a form that is extra-offensive to Islamic principles. We still seem stuck on the basic facts, not that the arbs seem likely to address these issues at all. Then we can do it all again at an RFC. How nice. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John it's a talk page. I know Arbcom won't take any notice of this discussion but we still need to have it. The 8 "images" includes calligraphy.
 * Ok, I see - but what with "PBUH" etc there are really more than 2 of those. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many pieces of calligraphy do you think there are in the article that are explicitly of the prophet. I'm going with Jayens number but I do want to know what you think the number is. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to the Western image maybe we don't bother as that would be in line with a sensible count for the whole article given calligraphy is much more common than minatures.-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, you are making a distinction where there is no difference. You are right, it's the intention that counts, and since the intention in both cases would be modifying the contents of the encyclopedia due to religious beliefs, both are a problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it a problem to modify the encyclopedia due to religious beliefs, intrinsically? That is, I can see circumstances where to do so would be a good thing, and others where to do so would cause harm. An example of the first would be to remove the black stone image from Muhammad; that would reduce the genuine offense caused by the article while having no impact on the readers' understanding of the topic. An example of the latter would be removing a veiled depiction from Muhammad, that would reduce the real educational value of the section.
 * We normally respect the religious sensibilities of our readers wherever we can do so without harming the real educational value of the encyclopedia. See Wahabi. See Haredi Judaism. See the version of Muhammad on the day the Danish cartoons were published. It is a reasonable thing to do, when it doesn't significantly reduce the educational value of the article. It shows respect for our readership and endears them to us, rather than disaffecting them. To do otherwise betrays our commitment to service in favour of ... what? The right to offend?  --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do it for all, or do it for none. Don't decide that one group's sensitivities are reasonable and another group's are not. There's no objective basis for deciding that the Wahabi offense at seeing an image of a person is more or less reasonable than the Sunni offense at seeing an image of Muhammad. Once you start making these value judgments that some religious offenses warrant response and some do not, you have biased the encyclopedia towards the religions that you heed. As for why it is "intrinsically wrong", it's because it inevitably leads to this kind of imbalance: there's just no mechanism available to balance religious belief against facts. As for the "reducing educational value", most of our imagery is purely decorative, with no educational value whatsoever: album covers, single covers, scenes from music videos, book covers, title cards from television shows, ad nauseum. There's no reason to believe that the images in Muhammad or Black Stone should be held to any higher standard.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can do it for all, at least unless or until doing it would harm the encyclopedia. As for the Wahabis, it would be far too disruptive to remove all redundant depictions of living things from the encyclopedia, and nobody would expect us to do that. It is perfectly easy to leave such images off Wahabi though, and we do. It's the kind of sensitive, respectful curation of the world's encyclopedia that most reasonable, socially intelligent people would expect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you think people would expect encyclopedias to censor themselves on religious grounds. I certainly have no such expectation, and suspect that very few people actually do. Most people are quite capable of distinguishing religious material from secular material.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm leery of using the word censor for what I'm describing. Is it censorship when you choose not to tell the stranger on the train they're fat? Is it censorship not to tell your interlocutor he's a fucking idiot? Is it censorship not to wave your privates about in public? I don't know. Maybe. If "censorship" is the right word for the removal of gratuitous offense, then so be it. Other opinions would be appreciated. Me, I call it politeness or maturity.


 * The simplest, most elegant and reliable way of determining what readers expect, is to see how reliable sources treat offensive content. It may not be perfect but it's more reliable than your opinion or the combined opinion of a group of Wikipedia editors who cluster around the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No. What keeps one silent in those 3 examples are community/social norms, we have the competence and common sense to know it is tactless to call someone fat, impolitic to tell someone to GTFO, it is shameful to be naked in public.  The community norms of the English Wikipedia simply do not extend to the Muslim society.  They revere Muhammad and adhere to the hadiths regarding depictions.  We treat Muhammad as an important figure of history, and certainly acknowledge his place as the central religious man in the history of Islam, but we do not need to and should not be expected by others to show that same deference when writing about him.  One does not have to be deferential to speak of the deference regarding Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree with Tarc's reasoning. Your examples would apply if we were going on an Iraqi train and waving an image of Muhammad around, or putting them up on telephone poles on an approach to a mosque. In this case, the images are in places where people have every reason to expect the presence of such images, given that they are typically found in all similar articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not depicting Muhammad at all is the societal norm. Just look at the New York times failing to depict the Danish cartoons. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the number of people arguing that we should be including the Danish cartoons in Muhammad is what, precisely? That's a red herring.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo. If anyone tried to insert something like the bomb-turban pics into the article, I'd be right alongside you eraser, calling foul. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. I would still like to know what the editorial argument is in favour of more than a couple of images. NOTCENSORED is clearly irrelevant if there is no editorial reason to include the images in the first place. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd phrase that more carefully: all NOTCENSORED requires is that some arguments aren't used or considered. In that sense, it remains relevant. It's at least theoretically possible that people could come up with valid arguments that would eliminate each and every depiction of Muhammad's face, but that's unlikely. All I argue for is that the image set is examined in the context of our normal editorial practices, with religion removed from the decision making process.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. In which case what's the editorial justification for including more than 2-3 images, one in the infobox, one in the depictions section, and arguably one in the Western section. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be typical of Wikipedia articles, would it? Look at Genghis Khan, for example: 29 images, 10 of which include his face, 1 of which is calligraphic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but the thing is that its quite clear that the number of depictions even in featured articles varies wildly as per table 2 of my evidence.
 * Additionally everyone agrees that calligraphic representations of Muhammad are more common than depictions. The current article only includes 2 such depictions (John claims there are more, but hasn't produced a number), therefore on editorial grounds to avoid misleading our readers there is a strong editorial case for only include 2-3 depictions so that the number of depictions is lower than the number of pieces of calligraphy as it is in the real world.
 * The only justification for more depictions than 2-3 is the argument that our readers only like "traditional" art and like pretty pictures which I think is a pretty weak justification. I'm curious to see if you'd go with that editorial justification or whether you have anything better.
 * WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant if there is no editorial justification for the content you are trying to protect. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are applying a higher standard to images in the article than is normally applied, and there is no secular justification for doing so. We don't try to claim that the illustrations we choose for articles are in any way typical of anything other than the way we typically illustrate Wikipedia articles. Yes, many of the pictures are there for no other reason than being "pretty", but so long as they illustrate the topic, that's all we normally require.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so your justification is that they are "pretty", fair enough.
 * But then if someone presented a stronger argument on our image use than "they are pretty" you'd be OK to go along with that? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone can see there are at least 11 images of calligraphy/arabic writing in the article not counting incidental writing on manuscripts and buildings. Quibbling over the number is just silly. You seem to miss the fundamental reason for the illustration of articles, and how we normally treat articles of historical figures who had action-packed lives as political and miltary leaders, which most of those in your evidence did not. Illustrating events from a life, where the images exist, is not a trivial benefit at all, and using images from medieval Islam, where things such as costume had not changed much at all, is perfectly in accord with or normal practice. It is also exactly why these images were produced in the first case (many of them anyway) - to illustrate a biography. The arbs don't seem at all inclined to explore the area of the appropriateness of images or I would add a lot more. But it can wait for the RFC. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are claiming 11, I presume you are including the Qu'ran and all sorts of stuff like that. That hardly seems like a legitimate comparison...
 * Personally I get 4, or possibly 5 pieces of calligraphy, but still that means a couple of depictions seems to be about the right kind of balance - as Muhammad is depicted much more commonly with calligraphy by your own words. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because pictures are much more useful than calligraphy, especially when very few of our readers can read it. As I say, your understanding of what illustration is for is not good. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are six needed? Especially as they are all narrative depictions?
 * And there are significant disadvantages as the current setup implies that depictions are far more common than they actually are which is misleading. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep your comments together please - no notes. It is because they are narrative images (of, of course, different things) that 6 are needed! Readers do not think that a choice of illustrations is intended to be some sort of statistically valid sample of what images exist. This strange idea is one that some people here have talked themselves into.  Readers expect illustrations to be chosen for them from whatever is available to illustrate the subject in the best possible way, on WP or in any type of RS.  As it happens we have a section which covers what the range of depiction is, but that by no means requires that the illustration of our article should follow what is most common. Where in MOS or policy does it say that? Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one of the things I find intriguing about all these discussions: people are coming forth with various standards for imagery. Many of them actually make sense. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a desire to actually get consensus that the image policy that is being proposed is generally acceptable for all articles across Wikipedia, nor are they being proposed at the various policy avenues on imagery. Right now, our defacto standard for imagery is basically that it is illustrative and related to the topic. The only time we impose higher standards is at WP:NFCC, and no one is proposing the use of copyrighted material to illustrate this article. WP:Images basically demands only that "images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic", with no standards for being highly educational or anything of the like.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what that guideline says. The policy, WP:IUP says "(images) should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." The Foundation resolution urges us to determine "whether (controversial content) has a realistic educational use." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say that the normal function of illustration as it has been understood for some thousands of years does not meet these criteria. That is a bold intellectual adventure begun by you, Hans Adler and Ludwigs. Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So why isn't calligraphy good enough to meet that? Why doesn't calligraphy illustrate the article better if its more widely used? Why risk giving an impression about how someone is expressed by artists that's wildly different from reality? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * a) That's a different issue, b) Because calligraphy is just pretty squiggly lines to non-readers of Arabic. c) Why are medieval Islamic miniatures "wildly different from reality"? Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * a) Why? Its the key issue. b) So what? They are art too, and arguing that "traditional" art is better amounts to WP:ILIKEIT which is a very weak argument. c) They are "wildly different from reality" if they aren't used in balance with how they are used in reality, you yourself have said that calligraphy is much more common. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Summing up [Anthonyhcole]
This is my view, after many weeks of very useful discussion. Not sure where to put it. If this is the wrong spot, please move it.

The current kerfuffle began on 20 October 2011 when Ludwigs2 asked at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_21 whether the Foundation resolution applies to image use at Muhammad. He was welcomed with a great deal of offensive hostility but persisted, trying to coax, cajole and eventually goad a rational argument out of the denizens, who refused to discuss the issue, essentially, and told him to take it to the policy pages. This he did, and was consequently accused of forum-shopping. I believe this project needs to heed the advice contained in the resolution. At the very least, out of respect for the Foundation we must pay enough attention to its advice to be sure we clearly understand it, and the likely costs and benefits associated with heeding or ignoring it.

I've been arguing that we should make very sure an offensive image has real educational use for the section it illustrates. That's one hurdle for offensive images, and it mirrors "determining whether it has a realistic educational use" in the resolution: JN is arguing we should follow the sources, generally, wrt image curation. Personally, I think that's unnecessarily restrictive (because constraints wrt availability, copyright, censorship and commercial pressure differ between sources, and between Wikipedia and print), but I believe his formulation is exactly right for curation of controversial images: it is the best way to determine the second stipulation of the controversial content resolution, regarding readership expectation. The Foundation urges us to apply the principle of least astonishment when curating controversial images; essentially, conform to the readers' expectations. I cannot think of a more reliable means of estimating readership expectation than to be guided by what reliable sources do. It's not perfect, for all the reasons in parenthesis above, but it's better than relying on the opinion of whatever self-selected group of editors happen to gravitate to a controversial topic.

The Harris study, upon which the resolution is based, discusses two foundational pillars of the projects, the principles of "intellectual openness" and "public service and respect". They observe that the principle of public service needs to be more explicitly understood by Wikimedians. They point out that, though the first principle, openness, usually guarantees the second, service, there are rare occasions where that compatibility of principles breaks down, where increased intellectual openness threatens to reduce our public service, rather than increase it, where "the principles of openness and service grate against each other, and seem to need some lubrication. The question we must ask and answer is: Is that lubrication possible without destroying the very principles on which the enterprise is founded?" They believe it is not only possible but necessary.

I don't know whether this resolution is mandatory. It may be, if the Foundation so chooses. I reject the repeated assertions that the resolution has nothing to do with us, and that those arguing for its relevance to this project and this article are troublemakers.

I believe the committee should thank Ludwigs2 for raising this important question, and for persisting, and that it should strongly admonish or sanction those that have been attacking his character and motives for doing so (though the committee might consider offering him some firm guidance wrt ABF and staying focused on the topic of the thread).

I have repeatedly been told that WP:NOTCENSORED forbids us to consider offensiveness, particularly religious offense, in our curatorial choices. This undermines the poorly-grasped foundation principle of service and respect, diametrically contradicts both the resolution and WP: GRATUITOUS, and seems to be opposed to every notion of civilised human interaction.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what if anything the committee can do about the larger issues here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anthony. Three quick points:
 * As far as following sources for image curation is concerned, I believe my views are exactly the same as yours. We should look at sources for a reality check whenever imagery becomes controversial, and otherwise allow editors considerable leeway.
 * I agree that Ludwigs2 deserves thanks for raising the issue, and that he received a hostile reception.
 * As for offensiveness – I said earlier that "Offensiveness is indeed irrelevant. The editorial standards of sources however are highly relevant." I agree with you that offensiveness is highly relevant in a general sense: if Wikipedia were to offend all – or a very large proportion of – its readers, to the extent that these readers would go elsewhere, that would clearly be a problem. But in practical terms, editors' subjective assessments of offensiveness are rarely a solid and objective basis for discussion of a specific image (like the pregnancy lead image). So there is a good reason why WP:NOTCENSORED says that "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." The decision what is appropriate or WP:DUE to include, and how prominently to include it, is one that should be guided by reliable sources. By following the guidance of reliable sources in this, as in everything else, we arrive at a way of dealing with potentially objectionable content that will not unduly shock or astonish readers, because it is consistent with what readers find in reliable sources. Where Wikipedia has failed, it has failed because it has placed a local consensus above the NPOV, arriving at a presentation that is uncharacteristic and out of line with reliable sources. -- J N  466  14:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor point. The Harrises explicitly reject taking into account "potential offensiveness", as that applies to all content everywhere. They settled on "controversial". "Controversial", the way they use it, includes only offensive content that broad groups of people demonstrably are disaffected by. "Controversial" restricts our consideration only to offensiveness where it is reflected in an easily observable large social phenomenon. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Following reliable sources will, of course, also ensure that significant controversies will be taken into account and related content handled in an appropriate and NPOV manner, while uncharacteristic, purely idiosyncratic offence-taking (as in the balloon example in the Harris report) will be ignored, simply because it's not reflected in reliable sources. This is all standard NPOV stuff, really -- viewpoints in due proportion to their published prevalence. -- J N  466  13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the precise deadline for the evidence gathering phase, and where is the statement about it hidden?
After a long phase of traveling I am finally back to a computer with a reasonable screen. I vaguely remember there was a deadline and that we are close to it. But I can't find what the deadline was. In a previous Arbcom case I also nearly missed a deadline, but then at least I was able to find it when I looked for it (I think it was on the Evidence talk page, not the Evidence page, where I expected it). So, where was the deadline posted?

As a general comment, I don't think it's a good idea to give regular Arbcom case participants an advantage by putting such vital information in random or unlogical places. I suggest that every case page should have its deadline, if one exists, in a standard location near the top of the page itself. Hans Adler 09:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't find it, either, but the decision phase begins on January 13.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's here. Mathsci (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess this means I have until today midnight GMT, which is not a lot of time given that I must also prepare a lecture for tomorrow. I didn't see this, and I think I have seen something a little more explicit somewhere else, but I can't find that. Hans Adler 12:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hans, I suspect you that might have until midnight GMT on 11 January. It's probably best just to ask AGK directly. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Separately from this thread, I actually tried to work on an additional line to the grey, boxed case header that specified the various deadlines (which for reference are in their standard form as specified at WP:AC/P). However, my edits to Template:Casenav weren't displaying properly, so I reverted until I have time to look at it properly. Hans, the deadline is specified in a message to every disputant when the case is opened; you were notified too, and the deadline is given in bold print for your convenience. I will follow up regarding your evidence submission on your talk page. Regards, AGK   [• ]  16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything. WP:AC/P is of course not much help to case participants. The Arbcom pages are such a mess that it regularly takes me half a dozen clicks or so to get to some of the more important pages, and I often found it easier to find an old case via the Signpost rather than the proceedings archive. I am not sure if you can follow me, but for me a message on my talk page is just about the least logical position for this kind of information. It certainly never occurred to me to look there. I am very glad to hear you are working on adding this to Template:Casenav. I just realised that it was also you who normalised "inded of proceedings" to "archive of proceedings" a year ago, another very welcome improvement. Hans Adler 17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For once I can agree with Hans on something. As a first-time participant I found WP:AC/P remarkably uninformative about later stages - it seems to peter out once a case has started properly. I hope the new committee will regard improving it as a priority. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Y'know, closed or not, I really hope that some of these parting shots will be taken into account anyways. Hard to believe I was just drive-by-associated with psychopaths and autistics.  AGAIN. :/ Tarc (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just happy that Anthony has a PhD in ethics and another in psychology, because obviously he wouldn't make statements like that unless he was graduate level educated in those subjects. I mean, to state ones moral opinion as fact can really only be done by someone who has spent the better part of 10 years in graduate school studying ethics, as you have to have some serious scholarly backing to even assume that one's stance is so absolutely correct that those who disagree must either be mentally deficient either by disease or by inadequacy.  Certainly there are no major schools of ethics that could possibly argue that believing that censorship is worse than offending people would be a reasonable stance. And he definitely must have seriously studied psychology to diagnose autism and/or psychopathy over the internet.  As a matter of fact, diagnosing people without a clinical visit and based on a couple symptoms from the DSM is exactly what freshmen in college don't do.  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 03:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and did anyone else notice the irony of offending other editors as a means to convincing them that offending people is wrong? Of course, following this logic, where those who don't care about offending people must be autistic and/or psychopathic, I do ponder whether anthony cares that his words offend people.  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 03:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)