Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Proposed decision

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

Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment
FYI

Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment

This was mentioned in the arbitration and it closed late yesterday, rejecting the proposed wording on the guideline. (I did not participate). It should be on the case pages for the record and reference. I would also suggest that it be "locked" for future navigation. Please move this information elsewhere on these case pages, as appropriate. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Muslims, educational value, and offense to beliefs
Funny but educational, I hope, even though it's probably not what you expect, except that it follows the ArbCom cultural values of making references to the Daily Show. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Decision
Not that I'm in a rush or anything, but wasn't the proposed decision supposed to be posted last night? What's the schedule at this point? N o f o  rmation  Talk 20:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The announcement was that the decision will be posted this evening, which was why the workshop and evidence pages were left unlocked until the last hour of yesterday. I think you are confused because this was a recent change from our initial position about the requests to extend the case by one day after the blackout; the change arose simply because I wasn't available to post the decision until this evening. Regards, AGK   [• ]  21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The decision is up for voting. Yes, we do sometimes post our decisions on schedule ;). AGK   [• ]  23:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Principle of Least Admonishment
AGK, I appreciate the measured way in which you describe my edits of 2.26 pm and 3.06 pm on 10 December, in the context of my conduct overall.

However, I would object that it seems to me to be beyond reasonable dispute that these constitute an isolated incident within a generally good record with regard to the present dispute. As you will be aware from reading my workshop comments, these edits were brought up at ANI on the same day, where, without fuss, I agreed that I would not make any such further edits. I have kept to this and, as far as I have been made aware, I have not engaged in any conduct since then which could reasonably be criticised.

Although admonishment surely measures as "mild" on the scale of sanctions that ArbCom is able to impose, it is, nonetheless, a sanction. It should not be given on a punitive basis, but only where there is a realistic preventative purpose. I do not believe that it is reasonable to imagine that giving me a reminder to "behave with appropriate professionalism" will have any effect on my future conduct and therefore such an admonishment, serving no purpose, is inappropriate in the context of an ArbCom ruling.

--FormerIP (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to Jclemens: I did not alter any encyclopaedic content with these edits. This is a misunderstanding. The edits in question were made on the talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it like an IP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the qualifier on some occasions makes it clear that, in contrast to some other conduct findings, the behaviour being remarked upon is not part of a serious pattern. AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What are the "some occasions"? That doesn't make it clear, I think. It makes it misleading. If there is no serious pattern, then there must surely be no need for ArbCom to take action. --FormerIP (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions
Might I suggest that the second sentence of remedy 8 be cut? The discretionary sanctions page is linked, and preventing even accidental deviations from the standard wording would be nice. NW ( Talk ) 01:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right, but one of my colleagues has gotten there first with a simpler remedy for discretionary sanctions. Thanks for your views. AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed principle 4 – external beliefs
Further to Newyorkbrad's comment on Proposed principle 4, we should be wary of classifying belief systems as "internal" or "external" to Wikipedia. NPOV is basic and non-negotiable. It means that all belief systems and world views – atheism, agnosticism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, whatever – are equally "internal" and "external" to us. None is allowed to dominate to the exclusion of others, but per NPOV, each is reflected, without any bias whatsoever, in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources.

In this particular case, the proposed wording could also be read to imply that anyone identifying with specific Muslim beliefs would not be "in" Wikipedia even if they were contributing, and would not be part of its community the way an atheist would be. -- J N  466  01:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposed principle 4 has not met with support, so it will not be part of our final decision. AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing word in proposed remedy 1
The sentence beginning "Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected by any uninvolved administrator," is missing a word after "affected". Either "area" or "page" would seem to fit, but as they have different implications I don't want to presume one or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Pages was added. Thanks, AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
This should have gone into the workshop and I'm not sure if you have to procedurally decline, but I just thought of it so I'm mentioning it now. I don't think it is contentious, but please feel free to remove this post if it's pointless (I've never been involved with an Arbcom case so I'm still learning the bureaucracy here).

Something that might want to addressed with a proposal is that article talk pages don't exist as platforms for policy changes. During a lot of this debate there was some acknowledgment that WP:NOT as currently written does not in fact mesh with desires to remove all the images but that the policy should be ignored and/or changed. While this may be the case, these discussions should take place on various policy talk pages and never on article talk pages. N o f o  rmation  Talk 01:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From my interpretation of the dispute, there was no serious attempt to "make policy" on the talk pages, so I don't think such a remark is required in our decision. AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect diff in Ludwigs2 (conduct)
I suspect the first diff in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Proposed_decision#Ludwigs2_.28conduct.29 is supposed to be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=459357060&oldid=459356266 &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

L2 and conduct
I'm confused by this proposed FoF and the related remedies. I don't see anything particularly problematic in any of the seven diffs provided, with the possible exception of the second - my response to Tarc (though that was goaded). They all seem like fairly reasonable comments. If in fact - as Caliber suggests - the problem is that I talked too much, then it would be better to remove the diffs and say that straight out. But that confuses me even more: assuming these are the worst diffs you can find, then my flaw seems to be that I am vociferously reasonable. Don't we want people to stick up for reasonable outcomes and rational discussion?

I'm trained as an academic, and that carries with it two assumptions: In fact, this is how the scholarly world works - people examining an idea in extended detail until they have explored the differing positions - and while I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to be fully up to academic standards, I would expect it to respect their methods, not condemn them.
 * Complex ideas need complex discussion, and while one can be concise one can't always be brief. Extended discussion is normal for me.
 * I have an expectation that others will read, think, and respond fairly and intelligently (within the constraints of their own particular worldview), and that when there is disagreement it's because we carry different assumptions about the issue. This calls for for more discussion to discover the differing assumptions, not less.

It would put my mind to rest if someone could explain in clear terms I simply don't understand what it is you want me to change, or why - I never have, really, except on those occasions where I lose my temper - and unless you clarify that point, you make it impossible for any change to occur. My concern here is that you are responding to the extensively vociferous slander that's been laded on me (in this dispute and elsewhere), and are trying to control the person I have been made out to be rather than the person you are actually faced with. If you want to sanction me for something I'm actually guilty of, I can't see as I'd object to that, but I'd rather not get sanctioned over erroneous misconceptions. -- Ludwigs 2 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) what precisely is objectionable in these particular diffs, or
 * 2) what behavior in general is being objected to
 * I have to admit that I do agree with Ludwigs here but with a different conclusion. When reading the diffs provided I was surprised as I didn't see anything that really jumped out to me as problematic, insofar that if I were an arbiter and hadn't seen anything else I would certainly not condemn Ludwigs for anything provided.  However I do think that many problematic diffs do exist and am under the working assumption that the arbiters are looking at far more than what has been presented.  With that said, Ludwigs, I would like you to know that I have an immense amount of respect for you and do not support you being sitebanned, though I do support restrictions for the sake of the project.  I also acknowledge that a large part of the problem with your editing style is not so much that each diff might provide an obvious policy violation, but that overall your editing could be construed as TE.  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 09:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually hoping for a little guidance from the Arbs on this, NoFo, but thanks. I can't see that my behavior has been all that bad in this dispute.  I'm not pushing some kind of a POV (or even doing anything all that extraordinary - I've been arguing a line that's relatively common in the social sciences), and in most places I've been perfectly reasonable about it (more reasonable than the people arguing against me, in fact).  Where's the TE?  sure, a lot of people have accused me of TE - people started accusing me of TE (and other things) on my fourth post, I think - but the fact that I personally annoy them (which seems to be true) does not make me guilty of TE in and of itself.


 * The point is, it isn't particularly fair to talk about sanctioning me if no one can explain what it is I'm being sanctioned for. That would more or less preclude any possibility that I could fix the problem; it would merely be senselessly punitive.  The way it looks to me now (pardon the bias in this statement) is that I'm being considered for sanctions because other people refused to be reasonable, which is extremely cockeyed, if true. I'd really like someone to explain how that's not the case so that I can feel better about this process as a whole.  -- Ludwigs 2  12:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that this is essentially just Arbcom participating in the general mobbing. The community uses Ludwigs2 as a convenient scapegoat. He usually gets involved in contentious topics on the unpopular side. He usually has basically a valid point, and therefore it's usually not so easy to argue against him. Add to this his penchant to overstate things initially and some irritating though in no way objectively disruptive minor traits, and it's clear how he got into this function and that he doesn't seem to have much of a chance to get rid of it.

What amazes me is that a generally quite clueful incarnation of Arbcom gives the impression of jumping on the bandwagon without properly checking the facts. Basically they are going to sanction Ludwigs2 for behaviour unrelated to this case because they couldn't find enough in this case but almost everybody agreed it was all his fault. I am not sure that anyone has invested the time to analyse the earlier situations to make sure it is fair to hold them against Ludwigs2 in this case. Apparently to cover up this weakness, they have presented diffs from the Muhammad images debate that are not proof of any disruptive behaviour.

I suspect that it's a case of group thinking. My best bet is that everybody thinks that someone else has verified the facts. Maybe it's even true to the extent that one arbitrator has looked at the facts. Hans Adler 19:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hans, that isn't the case, they are looking outside the case to show that just a topic ban for this one subject is appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear to me that Ludwigs' participation in this dispute has been seriously unhelpful. I didn't reach that opinion based on the reception he was given by the other disputants, and indeed I made a deliberate effort to ignore their reaction to all his comments (because I was aware from the requests phase that there was some degree of mobbing of Ludwigs). However, I cannot see any way to resolve this dispute without recognising that Ludwigs' interactions with his peers has, I am sorry to say, been a consistent source of disruption. In short, he is unable to collaborate effectively, and that is a sub-issue we must address in our decision. AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt this is your clear view. It is not shared by me. Neither do I believe it would be the view of many of your colleagues, if they took the trouble to look carefully at this case. Ludwigs will take on ownership, ignorant assertions, poor reasoning, IDHT, and ad hominem. He is wordy and pedantic when he does so, but until someone writes WP:ANNOYING that's not actionable, and he occasionally meets ad hominem with ad hominem. That's it. I urge arbitrators to follow his edits on Talk:Muhammad/images and pay careful attention to the tone and nature of the comments to which he is responding.
 * If you don't actually carefully follow Ludwigs' experience on that talk page, if you don't see for yourself the tone and character of the offensive verbal assaults to which he was constantly subjected during that "debate," then I expect you to leave this case with a bad taste in your mouth, and I hope that taste returns the next time you're tempted, due to lack of time, lack of care, laziness or simple prejudice, to blindly join in the mob chant at arbcom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is not a sleazy, innuendo-cloaked personal attack? Or at least an oil-tanker-level poisoning of the proverbial well? What else besides carelessness, laziness, and "simple" prejudice is the arbcom mob capable of? Just polyphony? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * AGK: again, what's "clear to you" is not helpful, because it's not at all clear to me (and I obviously am the person it needs to be clear to if this is to be meaningful). frankly, whats "clear to me" is entirely different, and if I'm making a mistake it's contingent on you to let me know what that mistake is.


 * Maybe try turning it around: tell me what you would have done in the situation I found myself in. See it through my eyes, please - as being confronted with a deeply entrenched (though most probably unwitting) prejudice in an article - and frame it that way.  As far as I can see, there simply isn't anything to do other than what I did, except give up and allow the putative prejudice to stand without discussion. Is that what you believe I should have done?


 * I would really like you all to tell me what it is you think is wrong with me, that these kinds of sanctions are called for. And please feel free to speak freely; I never object to someone saying what's honestly on their mind (I only get upset at liars).  Why don't we all for once lay it out like it is?  -- Ludwigs 2  07:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's really my point. Even though the sections affecting me directly currently look as if they are going to fail, I am still getting constructive feedback from them on my own behaviour. I know what to be more careful about in the future. But I don't know what kind of practical message anyone is supposed to get from the Ludwigs2-related stuff unless it is the following: If you are constantly being mobbed, you must keep a low profile and you are not allowed to resist the mob. That kind of message would only make sense if it were accompanied by a promise that this kind of mobbing behaviour will be rooted out. (Maybe you are actually discussing this in the parallel case? That would make sense, as it's probably the worst form of incivility.) Hans Adler 10:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole seems to have retired and un-retired rather quickly... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is, why is this kind of off-topic, sleazy ad hominem from ASCIIn2Bme allowed to remain on this thread, during this process? The workshop page, and workshop and evidence talk pages, are peppered with this inappropriate snide shit. I felt covered in shit at the end of that process. It was this kind of behaviour, tolerated by the committee, that made me decide to leave the project. I am leaving the project. But I'm not going to ignore whats going on in this case.


 * You need to lead by example; you need to notice wmf:Resolution:Openness and WP:5P. Exercise some rigor on your own pages. I watched in dismay as the weeks rolled by on those pages, and the blatant lies and sleazy ad hominems mounted and mounted. Your inaction is loud tacit approval. Grow up. How do you ever expect editors to take Wikipedia's behavioural and talk page guidelines seriously when its peak body ignores them? How do you ever expect scholars, or just ordinary civilised people, to want to involve themselves here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, I agree with you that ASCIIn2Bme's comment is subpar, but you need to calm down. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very calm. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another point I wanted to make, I haven't personally noticed much incivility (beyond a little given it is a stressful process), but if someone has been repeatedly uncivil then I suggest gathering some diffs and emailing them to the committee, maybe they missed it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Still no comment from the arbiters on this. -- Ludwigs 2 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, the committee is apparently not going to respond to this question, so I left a note on Jimbo's talk page asking him to nudge them on it. -- Ludwigs 2 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But AGK is an arbitrator and has responded here. You just don't think that answer is good enough, and want more. If you want my call on the underlying behaviour (which I realize you don't), it's that you have consistently presented yourself as the only rational person in the room, the only one with the clarity to understand everything, including the "unwitting bias" of others. People present their objections to your ideas and you just brush it off as not up to your standard of rationality. This has been a common theme through many many interactions I've observed you in Ludwigs2, and I'm surprised you don't get it. You always seem to explain it in terms of the deficiencies of others. Maybe this wiki is just not ready yet to have the perfect editor around, and we all like to see some humility in others. That's what I think you should consider going forward. Franamax (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * AGK said that he did not include a site ban in the original proposal, the committee (or some part thereof) wanted it. So he is apparently not speaking for the committee.  The committee can draft a response which is in its voice (that would be best), or whatever they'd like to do.  but I am requesting transparency on this issue.


 * Don't misunderstand: I understand how hard it is to draft something like that - it is potentially deeply embarrassing for the committee if it turns out that there is no real call for a ban except that (as I'm fairly certain is the case) people just don't like my attitude. Sometimes I don't like my attitude either, so I can sympathize, but my attitude such as it is stems from the fact that I have high standards for rational discussion.  If I'm going to be banned because I ask for reasoned discussion on pages where people are deeply entrenched in emotional politics (with consequent commotion, because the more rational I try to be the more emotionally strident the others get), then I want to hear that specifically.  Or if I'm wrong, and there's another reason, I want to hear that.  I'll AGF that maybe they have a good reason that they have not thus far expressed, but I'm asking that they express that reason so we can all see it for what it is.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, I'm trying to communicate with you honestly and openly here. Now you're doing it again - you're suggesting that members of the arbitration committee are hindered in some way by their fear of embarassment over whatever mistake. In the first major interaction I had with you (that I can recall) I told you then "comment on content, not the contributor", and it's still true to this day. Don't ascribe or speculate on personal motives unless you have really solid evidence, otherwise I'm tellin' ya, it's a trap. Pull up on the stick man! BTW, if you want a tough mentor as a substitute for a ban, I will volunteer - though as fair warning, I don't see that as being a long-term commitment, perhaps I'm pessimistic by nature. Franamax (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Franamax: If the mentorship thing is an option, I'd be fine with you taking on the task - as I keep saying, all I'm asking for here is some clear guidance on or explanation of what it is I've supposedly done wrong. I'm not sure what such involves, but we can work out the details.


 * However, we're going to have to bridge the understanding gap here somehow. I find your post above perplexing: where did I say that the members of the committee are afraid of being embarrassed? "Embarrassing for the committee" is a statement of a political risk that the committee as a whole takes. That risk of embarrassment is a natural consequence of being given authority; it's that risk of political embarrassment that keeps the system honest and healthy.  For instance, I risk professional embarrassment (with strong political consequences in my department) every time I stand up in front of a class, because I am given intellectual authority for the subject - that risk makes me a careful, dedicated scholar.  It's not a bad thing at all, so why are you upset by it?


 * And "comment on content, not the contributor" is a great principle, but (if you look at the Muhammad talk page or the evidence here) it's a principle that no one except me gets in trouble for. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't have any problem admitting my own bad behavior, but I expect everyone to admit their bad behavior in turn.  we're all equally (un)virtuous here, and I'm tired of being singled out as a problem.  I mean, you're probably right that I should let people like Tarc and Resolute take pot-shots at me all day without flinching (it's a weakness of mine that I am eventually angered by constant harassment, and act out in unpleasant ways when I lose my temper).  but this is a two+ person dynamic.


 * Honestly, I sometimes get the sense that you - well, not you personally, but editors in general - think there's no politics on project. Any time two people get together there's politics.  Small groups can get away with informal politics because they have personal relationships that balance out the rough spots; large groups that don't codify their interactions break down into unruled mobs, which are appallingly political in the worst sense of the word. Part of the problem, I think, is that I am very aware of the politics extant on project, and talk and act as though everyone were equally aware of it.  At least, that's the only AGF reason I can think of why people keep reading my political observations and interpreting them as personal comments.  As I said, it's perplexing.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well Ludwigs, you suggested people "lay it out like it is", and so I will. Franamax has the issue dead to the rights. The problem people have with you is that you enter a discussion behaving as if you have a monopoly on what is "right" (I would have said "true", but you said elsewhere that you question such a concept).  Consequently, you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and that such disagreement shows a deficiency on their part that you feel compelled to point out and correct.  And when people (shockingly!) refuse to see it your way or consider your "corrections" to be personal attacks, you then feel compelled to badger them into thinking your way.  If that fails, you move to another forum to try and find "smarter" people to deal with.


 * One of your most common traits is to point out how you are a "scholar" or an "intellectual", etc. I have news for you:  Nobody cares.  You act as if this very assertion means your viewpoints should be given greater weight, or that it alone should show everyone else why they are wrong.  From everyone else's point of view, you're basically just waiving your e-penis around bragging how large you are.  It doesn't help your arguments and it doesn't move discussions forward.  It only tells everyone else that you suffer from delusions of superiority.


 * I think you need to be topic banned from this area. Do you need to be site banned?  That question, in my mind, is up to you.  The fact that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your behavioural issues - going so far as to characterize yourself below as one of the least disruptive contributors to the discussion - tells me that as of right now, yes, you do. I think you need to take a long look in the mirror.  You've been topic banned from Astrology, you will be topic banned from Muhammad and you've been called out elsewhere.  Several editors brought evidence against you in this case, and a majority of arbs seem set on the ban.  There is no shortage of people who see a problem. Are we all wrong? No.  And if you are capable of accepting that, then I am willing to ask the arbitrators to reconsider support for a site ban.  If you are not, then we're pretty much done here.


 * If Wikipedia has 20,000 editors, it has 20,000 opinions on what Wikipedia should be. The project will never be exactly what you want it to be and trying to force it is a futile waste of effort.  But that is what you do, and that is why you bring so much grief on to yourself.  I get that you feel it important to concern yourself with policy and controversial cases.  There is nothing wrong with that, except that you need to learn when to accept that your opinion is not the one that will carry the day.  My suggestion, if you should evade a site ban, is to step away from the policy pages for a while, find a topic you like, and write an article.  There will always be policy discussions to be had.  Take some time to put that scholarly intellect to good use. Resolute 23:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Resolute, Franamax: allow me to respond of your posts briefly:


 * First, I didn't ask for either of your opinion. I asked for the Committee's.  I'm not sure why you're confused by that.  However…


 * You seem to be suggesting that you don't think that you're right and I'm wrong. shall I provide diffs to the contrary? Everyone has an opinion when they enter a situation like this; the purpose of discussion is to change minds or reach compromises between those opinions.


 * The problem we faced on this debate (and on other places I've had conversations like this) is not that I entered the discussion thinking I was right, but rather that I entered the discussion raising the possibility that you might be wrong. that's a problem for you because we have different understandings of consensus:
 * You and franamax (and others) think of consensus in hegemonic terms: i.e. consensus refers to the beliefs of the group that has enough influence to achieve their goals (that being your group in this case).
 * I think of consensus in terms of proper argumentation and reasoned discourse: i.e. consensus refers to the the outcome of an inclusive deliberation.
 * Your sense of consensus and mine are grossly incompatible, and obviously my efforts to use reason to suss out the details of the disagreement are going to fall flat on your ears: you will misinterpret them - as you did - as a political ploy to change the hegemonic power structure rather than as an effort to engage rational discussion. There's nothing I can do about that misinterpretation, and there's nothing I can do about your hegemonic understanding of consensus (since it's doubtful you're aware that that's how you see it, or that there's any other way to see it).  All I could really hope for was to bring the issue to a group which would ostensibly have more of a vested interest in rational discourse.  But apparently, it wasn't enough of a vested interest…


 * I don't care about being right, Resolute - not one bit. I care about thinking things through correctly, and discussing them properly.  You think I'm trying to force you to do what I want, when in fact all I want is for you to discuss things like a mature adult, because if we do that, everything else will sort itself out quickly.  But that's the one thing you won't do.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Q.E.D. i suppose... Franamax (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suppose what you like; but read what I wrote. if you AGF a little (which would be a first for me on project), you'll understand my perspective better.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Q.E.D. is right. You continue to push the belief that it is everyone's fault but yours that your arguments aren't getting anywhere. We're not "mature adults".  We're not "reading what [you] wrote".  We're not assuming good faith.  Every time you fail to convince others that you are right, it is always a deficiency in the other person.  I can't say that I expected you to respond any other way, actually.  Resolute 05:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Resolute, you keep pushing that perspective. And I suspect you personally are a mature adult, you just don't reason like one.  deal with it.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Few as euphemism for none
"because few images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life". None were found, just like no Quran dating from Muhammad's lifetime was found either. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed by everybody - now adjusted in the proposal, though other inaccuracies there remain. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to none. Thanks, AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrections
These were discussed already on the Workshop page, but got lost somewhere along the way (I'm not blaming the arbs, that page turned tl;dr very early on). However, I would like to draw attention to two points in particular which I feel strongly should be addressed in the proposed decision:


 * 1) As I pointed out when I first saw AGK's summary, there is a factual error. In the "Background to dispute" section, the phrase "few images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life" is completely false. In actuality, there are no images from his lifetime. The earliest images we have were created several hundred years after his death. So a better sentence would be "no images exist" rather than "few images exist".
 * 2) I also strongly recommend that a Finding be added which links to the Wikimedia study (if nothing else, it'll make it easier to find later). I see several findings already on the proposed decision page related to the "Principle of least astonishment", but we somehow lost the FoF that explains where that term came from. Especially because the Wikimedia report specifically mentions images of Muhammad, it should probably be acknowledged in this case somewhere. Suggested wording:
 * In 2010, the Wikimedia Foundation commissioned a study on controversial content, and in May 2011 passed a Resolution concerning controversial content. The Resolution included discussion of religious content that may be offensive to some viewers, and the study specifically mentioned Muhammad images as an example of controversial content. The WMF resolution urges the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.
 * That would be relatively neutral, doesn't imply that ArbCom is or is not endorsing it, but simply states the facts. --Elonka 05:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, the English Wikipedia community rejected a guideline that was merely stating those facts. I'm guessing that merely stating facts about opinions is seen as endorsing them at least to the extent that they are considered on-topic and somewhat authoritative, otherwise why bother mentioning them? More to the point, there are substantive differences between what the Harrises proposed and what the WMF approved, particularly with respect to religious images (an issue that was debated to death in the /Workshop, I might add). The WMF resolution did not mention images of Muhammad. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that "POLA, as articulated by the WMF board", as proposed by Arbcom, is vague and ambiguous because it is unclear the Board did articulate it, other than writing those words. Articulation, generally involves more detail. Nonetheless, several clicks on the resolution, Elonka linked, fails to turn up mention of Muhammad in it, as her "suggested wording" states. The topic is briefly mentioned in the Report (not the resolution), among  a list of things, and discussed in a way that suggests they were either not focused on it, or did not understand the issue, particularly with reference to their use of the word "sacred," and it was only mentioned on the way to recommending that a user-image-filter for them be employed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you assuming good faith? Some Arbitrators even wrote they are merely restating policy about POLA (at 6.2), so it's fair to assume it is sufficiently articulated for them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I AGF. Saying something someone says is unclear, says or implies nothing about good or bad faith. Sometimes people mean to be ambiguous; sometimes it's useful and has good reason, but other times they don't want to be ambiguous, and they appreciate others seeking clarification. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Alanscottwalker, thanks for pointing that out. I have reworked the wording slightly, and added a link to the section referring to the Muhammad images, to make it more clear. --Elonka 09:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But linking them in that way could be misleading, in that one small aspect of the report may have had little or no bearing in the resolution.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think the study needs to be at least mentioned, since it does refer to this exact topic. ASW, what wording would you suggest instead? --Elonka 18:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, ASW, I wonder if that's taken . . . At any rate, perhaps: "The community may find benefit in reviewing the Harris Report." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Few was changed today to none; I'm not sure how that error crept back into my draft, because I acknowledged it following last week's workshop talk feedback session. The WMF study was acknowledged in the background finding (#1), in the last paragraph, which I think is sufficient. Thanks, AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That'll work for links, thanks. The only thing that I still feel should be added though, is that the WMF study specifically mentioned Muhammad images as an example of controversial content. Since this case is about exactly that topic, it seems odd to me that there's not a reference to this anywhere. --Elonka 07:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a new FoF which uses your first sentence above, including that the study specifically mentioned Muhammad images. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Words

 * Resistence --> Resistance. Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the edit conflict! This one's evidently fixed now. --Elonka 09:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * participations --> participants, in first sentence of General caution to parties Prop. Remedies no. 9 Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry? You may have intended to fix, but as of this comment, it's not. It's the second word in the first sentence. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor copyediting
Hi, I have no desire to proofread the case with as much thoroughness as might be done on an FA, but there are a few typos that could perhaps be fixed? And there are probably several other places that could be tweaked, (like the word "Neutral" being capitalized in one of the remedies) but they start getting into obscure territory, so I'm not going to worry about them. :) Thanks for your attention, --Elonka 06:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Capitalization is off. Some findings have all words capitalized, others don't (either's fine, I just recommend making it consistent).
 * If going with the "every important word" capitalized system, then "Wikipedia is Not Censored" should be "Wikipedia Is Not Censored" (verbs get capitalized)
 * In "Sober Eyes": "request for comments" should be "request for comment"
 * "resistence to censorship" --> "resistance to censorship"  (other than that, I really liked the proposed wording in this one)
 * "and therefore cosmetic" --> "and were therefore cosmetic"
 * "the images of Muhammad was" --> "the images of Muhammad were"
 * "from the affected" --> "from the affected pages"


 * Yeah ok, done spot ones above, though I disagree that a "were" is needed before "therefore cosmetic". Will look later at general capitalisation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Elonka 09:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Should (Principle 6: POLA)
6 and 6.1 seem to have been carefully worded to effectively state support for POLA while also saying that it isn't a policy or guideline and Arbcom aren't treating it as one. 6.2 straight says that people "should" take it into account. You've all been here long enough to know that an Arbcom ruling that people "should" take account of POLA is going to be a key point much repeated in a multi-page heated debate over whether it effectively already is policy and endorsed as such by Arbcom. The fact that the surrounding commentary, but not the principle, seems to recognise that the community might decide otherwise just adds fuel to the fire.

Abbreviated debate follows as a starting point, just pad out a bit and add in the personal insults, edit warring on the (policy / not policy) page and wheel warring over protection of said page:
 * Arbcom said we should do this, which means that it already is policy.
 * Ah, but Arbcom don't make policy and they didn't say we should do it they said we should take it into acount.
 * Well they intepret policy, so they've interpreted it as policy that we should take this into account.
 * NYB said in his support comment that the community might not adopt it as policy or guideline, that's why he said "if at all" about the community adopting it.
 * He said adapt, not adopt. If we don't adapt it then it's policy as written.
 * He obviously meant to say adopt.
 * I don't think so and even if he did then unless we decide NOT to adopt it then Arbcom have said we have to take it into account so it's policy until then.
 * Arbcom don't make policy and AGK said Arbcom wouldn't interfere in the process and JClemens agreed.
 * They said that on a principle that was rejected. The one that passed said we have to apply POLA, and that was them applying policy... 87.254.68.117 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Newyorkbrad only had the highest intentions when he wrote 6.2. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As do I, but 87.254 has a valid point. Some rewording would help this proposal. Resolute 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, reliable sources apply the principle of least astonishment in contexts that refer to a particular computing/ergonomics culture, e.g. engineers making a product for a specific market where the users have prior knowledge of similar products. Some sources do point out that what is least astonishing may depend on the audience. I've asked this in the RfC, but nobody was able to provide an answer how that principle may be applied to social controversies, where by definition you have two or more competing narratives. So, the WMF has gone beyond the contexts that reliable sources consider for the principle when they asked editors to consider applying it to religiously controversial material. Although Anthonyhcole has proposed the "principle of least controversy" in the Workshop, I don't think that has been exposed to community scrutiny insofar. ArbCom asserting that the principle should be considered in this case implies that a proper application of the principle exists, e.g. Anthonyhcole's extension or some other. If so, ArbCom should be more explicit about what they mean, because the community has failed to identify such an application to religious controversies in the RfC. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. The rules must be as explicit as possible, if Arbcom is in fact requiring the participants to follow rules not adopted by the community -- it would be entirely unfair otherwise to editors. But I am not sure that they would (could?) make such requirement. Although, you are right to seek as much clarity in that regard, as possible, for everyone's sake.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

May
Newyorkbrad has now suggested "may" instead of "should" in the comments to that section. Seems [not] reasonable [for the reasons stated below]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think "may" fixes it. That would mean it isnt a principle; it would be ArbCom giving editors permission to use POLA in content discussions, despite it being a failed proposal, which is the point being made above by 87.254. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You may be are probably right about that.  I have amended my comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider excluding Reference Desk from Ludwigs2's ban
I haven't been following this case too closely, but it looks like Ludwigs2 is about to get a one year site ban. I'd like to mention that Ludwigs2 has been a valued and worthwhile contributor to the Reference Desk. AFAIK, his conduct has not carried over in the reference desk. I ask the committee to please consider excluding the Reference Desk from his ban. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. It is the talk page to end all talk pages, and that is where his preferences lie. Sections are too short & fast-moving for him to bog things down I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree if if weren't for his WP:DEADHORSE above. Banned means banned? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but has this conduct extended to the Reference Desk? To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't.  If there's evidence to the contrary, I'll withdraw my request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the request that the reference desk be excluded from the siteban? If so, we could not allow that. AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not technically but if there's no harm then "siteban" could simply be rephrased as something like "from all article and talk pages with the exception of the reference desk." This is of course assuming that he wants to stick around and be restricted there.  I would certainly support this under the same condition mentioned by Quest.  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your question. Are you asking this from a strictly tools perspective?  IOW, are you saying that it's not possible from a technology perspective to site-ban an editor except for the Reference Desk?  If so, then don't use the tools.  AFAIK, there's no technical way to topic ban an editor either.  ArbCom simply issues a ruling and the editor is expected to abide by the ruling or risk being blocked.  Simply rule that Ludwigs2 is site-banned except for the Reference Desk, or risk being blocked.  Ludwigs2 honored the topic-ban for astrology so I don't see any reason to suspect he won't honor this ruling either.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, I know you are quite busy these days but is it possible for you to follow up with Quest's question? AFAIK L2 has not been disruptive in this arena, and indeed the arena doesn't lend itself to disruption.  L2's problem isn't causing a problem everywhere he goes, it's getting into protracted disagreements with editors in contentious areas.  The RD is a place for people to ask questions and acquire knowledge and this exactly the kind of thing that L2 is good at.  Over all I think it would be a net loss to the project to disallow him from this minor exception.  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Principals 4.2 - Wikipedia is Not Censored
I agree with Jclemens. Belief systems shouldn't be singled out. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see this is fixed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Still problems with "Background to dispute"
There are still serious issues of accuracy with the proposed finding of fact "Background to dispute", which has hardly changed at all since the draft submitted at the start of the case (has it actually changed at all?). One basic error has already been adjusted by Courcelles (see sections above). If such a finding is made it should be accurate, but many of the issues were not covered in evidence, and the draft was produced near the beginning of the case. The proposed draft makes highly contentious statements about Islamic practice and art history, some of which are clearly incorrect. It is much too long and detailed, and the committee just has no need to go there, still less sign up to an account containing glaring errors. Most of these were pointed out when the draft first appeared, but these comments seem to have been completely ignored, and the draft has resurfaced entirely or virtually unchanged. It is especially important that we do not go into an RFC, where most participants will have little knowledge of the factual background, with a prejudiced and misleading "finding of fact" from the arbcom.

I have added a redraft below which simply omits most of the contentious and unnecessary detail, adding a few more relevant points that were omitted.


 * 1) "In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare..." - meaning what exactly? Two lines later "Images of Muhammad are uncommon in Islam", which is still vague, but less contentious. This whole sentence goes into un-necessary detail.
 * 2) "this faction asserted the article must rely on artwork created after Muhammad's death " - misleading; everybody agrees that there are no images from his lifetime, and this was never an element in the dispute.
 * 3) "such as those from an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common" Just nonsense; when was this "atypical period"? Who among the parties used this argument?  Where is it in the evidence or workshop? At the end he means "when figurative depictions of Muhammad were common in Islamic art".  Even worse, the placing of this within the arguments of one "faction" implies it was their view, when it clearly wasn't.  In fact this meme was argued by User:Wiqi55 in the past, but was abandoned when it was easily disproved by RS.
 * 4) "artistic portrayals of Muhammad is common in Islamic artistry" ?! - just means "Islamic art", so say so.
 * 5) "Before this dispute came to arbitration, the disputants participated in extensive discussion of the images of Muhammad, at Talk:Muhammad/images. A decision was reached by consensus that some images of Muhammad should be included,..." - convenient for my side of the argument, but when was this actually? Near the end of the workshop phase I went all through the archives without seeing such a decision involving "the disputants". Such a conclusion could be drawn from the image-by image discussion in May 2011 at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_20, but only 4 of the 15 parties to this case contributed to that useful discussion, namely myself, Amatulić, Resolute and Ludwigs2 - and our contributions were limited, with none of us except Amatulić voting on all the images.
 * 6) "In addition to the question of striking a balance between images of Muhammad, it was suggested that more use be made of alternative forms of representation, such as calligraphic images (which are comparatively common in Islamic art) and veiled representations (which are more common than portrait-type images)." - all mixed-up. Veiled images are included in the "images of Muhammad", and have always been treated so by all parties; they are not an "alternative". They are also "portrait-type images" and have been treated so by all parties. As already pointed out "portrait-type images" is misleading - there are no images that can accurately be so described involved in the case (all the images are narrative, with small figures, usually many of them); "figurative depictions" is what is meant. What does "striking a balance between images of Muhammad" mean anyway? The addition of more calligraphic monogram-type images was very rapidly accepted by all when Jayen did it - in fact I couldn't see it being opposed by anyone (though his subsequent proposal of also adding Qu'ranic inscriptions was).
 * 7) "The dispute has been deadlocked for some time" Overstated, as has been said already in the case, and "some time" should be specified - I would suggest "since late October 2011". There has been an intermittent state of dispute on the page for longer, but if you are talking about the parties to the case, most only edited the page from around this point.  Regarding "are more common than portrait-type images" (translation: "are more common than non-veiled images"), this may well be the case, but no one involved is a position to say so, and no RS does say so relating to the whole span of Islamic representations. There are complicated issues such as how one allows for images that were created with a facial depiction which was then painted over. But why on earth does the committee need to make "findings of fact" about such matters? It doesn't, and shouldn't.

Suggested re-draft, which mostly just cuts the contentious matters, as not essential. I have replaced the bogus art-history in the 1st para with a more relevant point about existing compromise placement, and added a long-term perspective (additions are italicized).:

1) The dispute relates to the use of images at the article, where the use of images depicting the person Muhammad has long been controversial, such that a special talk page, Talk:Muhammad/images, has been in place since February 2008, long before the majority of the parties to this case were involved. Broadly, the aim of the first faction of the parties was to retain the number of figurative depictions of Muhammad used in the current version of the article, in roughly the current placement. The basis for this position is that Wikipedia is not censored and, as a biography, the Muhammad article must include portrayals of Muhammad; the inclusion of images is therefore a reasonable editorial decision under the principle of least surprise. They asserted that the number was already fewer than would normally be in the case in such an article, and that they only began several screens from the top of the article.

The second faction of contributors moved for the removal of some (or less commonly, most) figurative portrayals of Muhammad, or for the portrayals to be placed less prominently in the article. The justification for this argument was that: the images were not made during Muhammad's life and therefore cosmetic in that they added nothing to the reader's understanding; that there was little use of images in reliable sources about Muhammad; and that the wide use of images wrongly implies that figurative portrayals of Muhammad are common in Islamic art, which distorts the reader's understanding of the subject, or would breach the 'principle of least astonishment' if they were aware of this. This faction argued that the figurative images of Muhammad were not important to the quality of the article, and therefore that they were unjustifiable in the context of the 'principle of least astonishment'.

Before this dispute came to arbitration, the disputants participated in extensive discussion of the images of Muhammad, at Talk:Muhammad/images, with most of the parties involved by October 2011. No agreement could be made about the precise number of images to include. Ludwigs2 opened a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about the application of the policy that "Wikipedia is not censored", and framed the discussion in terms of whether the images of Muhammad were 'incidental' to the article in that they were unessential to the reader's understanding - and therefore that inclusion was not a justified 'astonishment' of the reader. The disputants engaged in informal mediation of the dispute and discussed the issues extensively, without success. In November 2011, Resolute also proposed an alternative method of treating the portrayal of Muhammad (by basing Wikipedia's portrayal on that of secondary sources), but this was unsuccessful. The discussion was complicated by there being several possible ways to order the images, by debate about whether using less images constituted censorship, and by the question of applying the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on the 'principle of least astonishment'. Despite progress on some issues, the dispute has been largely deadlocked since late October 2011, and its intractability has been compounded by the conduct of several disputants, which was abrasive, unprofessional, or confrontational. Comments from those who have been following the page are very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments


 * Use/intention concern: I am concerned with the wordiness of the Proposed finding but more so it's use, after this case. How is it suppose to be used?  Is it an adjudication of academic, scholarship, religious, historical, content, or other such claims?  Or, is it not to be cited, as such, in the future? Perhaps, a clear disclaimer is warranted, within it,  if this amount of detail is gone into. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposed disclaimer. "The purpose of this summary is not to rule on or prejudice the validity of any content related claim or argument, nor to describe the detailed positions of individual editors; rather, it is to back-story, in summary form, some of the issues under discussion, and procedural history, at the time this case came to arbitration." Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * John I think this is really getting towards WP:DEADHORSE beating. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, why? AGK invited discussion, said he had noted the comments, and then totally ignored them, putting out his original draft without alteration as far as I can see. There's no way I'm letting a summary like that go forward without protest. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming John was not involved in the internal Arbcom discussions, or has any knowledge that any internal discussions about these issues took place, it seems reasonable for him to lay out his concerns about the final draft, here. As, for example, others have in various sections above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll let my colleagues decide if we need to amend the wording, but so far as I can see - although accuracy is very important - it's not a terribly sensible use of our time to ensure every technicality is correct. We tend to look forward, not back, in our decisions, and the committee has a solid grasp of the (more important) general issues with this dispute. AGK   [• ]  01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are "technicalities" why include them? If you include them, why not get them accurate?  Or just drop them, as my redraft does. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Johnbod on this one, the background section as currently written is not an accurate summation of the dispute. Particularly the characterisation of the "factions" (which we pretty much all agreed on the workshop was an unhelpful characterisation) does not reflect the actual position of either of the two sides you purport to define. I also feel that it is vitally important that all facts and factual statements presented in an arbcom decision are true - they are referenced time and again by different people in different disputes (almost all of which don't get to arbcom, but for those that do they provide key points of evidence). If the factuality of something is not relevant then it shouldn't be presented as fact (and probably is therefore irrelevant to the case). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative project, and you aren't going to win every single point you make as there are too many people involved.
 * John what you are asking Arbcom to do is to accept the draft of the background from a party, who is by nature going to be bias. And frankly I don't agree with all of John's points, but its really at the point where I don't want to make a detailed critique of John's whole statement as that seems highly unproductive.
 * There are two sensible ways to solve such a problem. Firstly you bring up 1-2 (relatively minor) points that you think are most in need of changing. In which case if need be they are easy to critique in a sentence or two, or to just accept as they are relatively minor and the committee can vote on them accordingly. This is what almost all of the points bought up on proposed decision pages amount to.
 * Secondly if you really feel its not an acceptable draft you gather a bipartisan group to come up with a re-draft. Its almost certainly too late for this now and I don't know if the committee would accept such a thing in general - but it at least should be a reasonably neutral summary. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As an example point 2 is worth getting right. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't about winning battles, it's about accurately describing the 'battles' (for want of a better word) that have already happened. There is no point in an arbitration finding saying users ABC were arguing W and X and users DEF were arguing Y and Z when in reality everybody agreed with X, most people though Y was irrelevant, W was a non sequitur and Z was tangential while the arguments were about MN on the one hand and QP on the other. AGK's summary isn't quite that bad, but it's almost as unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Eraserhead: I put the points down as I went through the draft, and soon realized that a suggested redraft would be necessary and more helpful; obviously this is proposed as a suggestion & basis for further changes. Yes, some points are more important than others. Most of my changes are simply cutting sentences that are a)incorrect and b)just too detailed for what the arbcom needs to say, and purporting to make statements of fact about art history etc. I have altered the language of the remaining parts very little, but added a couple of points that seem important if such a finding is to be included. Please point to any examples of bias, which I will be happy to change if convinced. I agree with Thryduulf above that the (modified) division into "factions" is rather over-simplistic, but have not changed that language except for touches to give a sense of the time-frame & when the present parties became involved. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have both completely failed to understand my point. Expecting to get a complete redraft at this point is unrealistic unless you can get bipartisan support for it as it stands - in which case I object. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Object to which bits specifically? Or just generally? It is very far from a "complete redraft". You are not a member of the arbcom, & they do not need your help to decide what to do. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to have a summary like this making various casual and baseless findings of fact on matters which ArbCom is not qualified to decide. I can't see that it serves any constructive purpose and it misleads other Arbs. It may turn out to be the seed of future dispute and it may take away confidence in the process, since it will appear to editors on both sides that decisions have been taken on the basis of fundamental misunderstandings as to the nature of the dispute.

It was correctly stated here that ArbCom is not able to act as an art historian. There is also no reason for it to try. --FormerIP (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How on earth are we going to resolve this dispute without a basis to start from? I'm really worried that you guys don't think AGK's summary is largely settled territory. None of you guys are even bothering to present any constructive and workable feedback. If ones boss goes and asks one for feedback about a project proposal you can't present a list of seven demands a day before he presents it - so many that a re-write is required and seriously expect him to take it on board. And that's the best of the complaints which at least manages to list the changes, rather than just stating that you don't like it. If I get asked for feedback about a project proposal I say stuff like, there's a spelling mistake here, the grammar here is a bit off, and then maybe challenge 1-2 more substantial points. If you do that I stand a pretty good chance of getting those points in the document and avoid anyone thinking I'm unreasonable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the place to settle conduct and receive certain guidance on policy and future behavior, correct? With respect to content, the community is being asked to approach with "an open mind." A reboot, correct? Is that what you mean by a settled basis? If so, any content dispute rulings would be off-topic, outside purview, as well as unneeded and unsourced. Nonetheless, it seems probable that the community would come to quick agreement on certain things, if not on others (but perhaps on everything - hope springs eternal) but the community should not be sidetracked by parsing what is suppose to be a conduct (non-content) related summary. At any rate, we should get as much guidance as possible now, about how to treat it, hence my proposal for a disclaimer, above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The arbs are still discussing their decisions. I would remind you that most of these points (and others) were made when AGK asked for comments on his original draft, but he has presented it without changes. This section was started as soon as I saw the unrevised secton. All you are saying (repeatedly and at great length) is that you don't think anyone on the committee is going to take any notice of this discussion.  You are probably right, but now you've said it four times you can stop. And please don't use notes format, it makes the page very hard to follow. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of feedback given in the workshop phase. What's not been presented in any phase is evidence demonstrating the comparative scarcity of different types of image (in fact, where evidence has been provided, it has tended to go against the suppositions made by AGK). --FormerIP (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John has admitted that calligraphy is much more common than other depictions, I haven't seen any evidence presented anywhere which challenges that analysis. And the feedback given in the workshop phase seems to be to have been taken on board - although lots of it wasn't really particularly well presented.
 * As long as we are saying that calligraphy is much more common if there is a change you want to the content about the relative weight of images of different types I'm on board with that, that sounds like an achievable change that hopefully we can get. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Due respect to John, but his impression isn't evidence. And you're putting the BoP back-to-front. If ArbCom wants to make declarations such as calligraphic images being "comparatively common" (compared to what?) and veiled images being "more common than portrait-type images" it really ought to explain how it has reached these conclusions. Until proven otherwise, it's just circular justification for supposing the article should be presented in a certain way. --FormerIP (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We've had tens of thousands of words of discussion on this, and no-one has presented any evidence showing that calligraphy isn't more common. This is really stating that the sky is blue unless there is significant evidence to the contrary.
 * I agree with you that avoiding a statement on veiled images vs unveiled depictions is sensible - the evidence I found implied they were used about equally, but it wasn't particularly clear. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started a section about the weight of veiled vs unveiled depictions. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)
 * Again, that's reversing the BoP. Caligraphic images of the type editors want to see in the article (i.e. those consisting of Mohammed's name) seem not be particularly common in history. To the extent that, whereas we have plenty of actual pictures of Mohammed to chose from, we have had to resort to user-created calligraphic images, because it has not been possible to find any usable real-life examples. That alone ought to tell you that the assumptions being made by editors are questionable. --FormerIP (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cut-only version of "Background"
Background to dispute 1) The dispute relates to the use of images at the article . Broadly, the aim of the first faction of contributors was to retain the images used in the current version of the article, and the current order of images. The basis for this position is that Wikipedia is not censored and, as a biography, the Muhammad article must include portrayals of Muhammad; the inclusion of images is therefore a reasonable editorial decision under the principle of least surprise. In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare, so this faction asserted the article must rely on artwork created after Muhammad's death (such as those from an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common) because no images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life.
 * If it helps, here is a "cuts only" version of the proposed section, which merely cuts the most problematic and "technicalities" sentences, which fortunately does not disrupt the flow, and leaves the rest untouched. Not ideal, but it removes the most problematic bits, and means the Arbcom is no longer making statements about art history etc.:

The second faction of contributors moved for the removal of some (or less commonly, most) artistic portrayals of Muhammad, or for the portrayals to be placed less prominently in the article. The justification for this argument was that: the images were not made during Muhammad's life and therefore cosmetic in that they added nothing to the reader's understanding; that there was little use of images in reliable sources about Muhammad; and that the wide use of images wrongly implies that artistic portrayals of Muhammad is common in Islamic artistry, which corrupts the reader's understanding of the subject. Images of Muhammad are uncommon in Islam, and the reader would be surprised to find such images included. This faction argued that the of images of Muhammad were not important to the quality of the article, and therefore that the images were unjustifiable in the context of the 'principle of least astonishment'.

Before this dispute came to arbitration, the disputants participated in extensive discussion of the images of Muhammad, at Talk:Muhammad/images. A decision was reached by consensus that some images of Muhammad should be included, although no agreement could be made about the precise number of images to include, nor which types of portrayals (if any) to use in replacement. Ludwigs2 opened a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about the application of the policy that "Wikipedia is not censored", and framed the discussion in terms of whether the images of Muhammad were 'incidental' to the article in that they were unessential to the reader's understanding - and therefore that inclusion was not a justified 'astonishment' of the reader. The disputants engaged in informal mediation of the dispute and discussed the issues extensively, without success. In November 2011, Resolute also proposed an alternative method of treating the portrayal of Muhammad (by basing Wikipedia's portrayal on that of secondary sources), but this was unsuccessful.

In addition to the question of striking a balance between images of Muhammad, it was suggested that more use be made of alternative forms of representation, such as calligraphic images (which are comparatively common in Islamic art) and veiled representations (which are more common than portrait-type images). The disputants explored a different composition of files, including more calligraphy and less images of Muhammad, and of a different order of images. The discussion was complicated by there being several possible ways to order the images, by debate about whether using less images constituted censorship, and by the question of applying the Wikimedia Foundation's study of controversial content and statement on the 'principle of least astonishment'. The dispute has been deadlocked for some time, and its intractability has been compounded by the conduct of several disputants, which was abrasive, unprofessional, or confrontational. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Still oppose. Mentioning the relative weight of calligraphy and non calligraphy is something we all agree on. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it? Arbcom making a statement about the relative weight of two options for presenting content seems to be a content ruling to me, something that Arbcom explicitly doesn't do. It should mention that these two options exist, that's purely factual and something everybody does agree on. It could also mention that not everybody agrees what the relative weight should be, again this is factual - even in just the workshop there were statements that there should be more and that there should be less. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unless you have a serious source to the contrary. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the article maybe, but why here? And that point went into the article with general agreement, and has stayed there, where this sentence gives examples of matters intractably locked. And why does the arbcom need to show off its expertise in Islamic art history? Johnbod (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So we have somewhere to start for our further discussions. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case, it does matter whether they get it it right or wrong, doesn't it? Thank you! Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative action for Ludwigs
Might I suggest that, rather than going for a site-ban, that Ludwigs be put on a sitewide civility probation for a year? Most of the diffs regarding his involvement in this case have been rather tame. His involvement in other cases has been very problematic, but those other instances appear to have been addressed in previous cases. Probation would, I think, encourage better behavior without preventing Ludwigs from making valuable contributions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't consider repeated personal attacks and consistent tendentious behaviour to be "rather tame" myself. A topic ban is the absolute minimum that should be considered.  Civility parole is a remarkably limp-wristed response to an editor whose behaviour has been "very problematic" in the past, and continues to be so now. You may as well just let him off the hook entirely for all the use any civility based sanctions tend to have on Wikipedia. Resolute 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not support a "civility parole" or anything similar. If an editor cannot contribute to a given topic, he should be banned from that topic. If he cannot collaborate as a general matter, he should be banned from Wikipedia. The conduct in question is seriously problematic and recurrent, which is why the committee seems inclined to consider a serious sanction - especially given the previous admonishment (which was not effective) and the recent topic-ban. AGK   [• ]  02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, AGK, I have a proven track record of collaboration. There have even been diffs presented in this case that show me calmly and productively collaborating with other editors (though those diffs were labeled as examples of me being tendentious - go figure).  On Muhammad, I was repeatedly trying to work with other editors to reach some new consensus, or at least have a discussion about the issue.  However, it is very difficult to collaborate with a coterie of editors who repeatedly assert that discussion is against policy and that no changes will be made.


 * Again, if you want to bust me for what I've done, that's fine. Don't make stuff up.


 * But I'm guessing that's not the real issue here. I hate to point out the obvious, but if you all are really desperate to get me off the project, why don't you just ask?  I respect the project for its principles (more than anyone in this discussion, I'm starting to think), and if I can't convince you all to see eye to eye with me in a short conversation, then I'd be just as inclined to retire this account and leave Wikipedia to its silliness.  My only goal all along in this debacle has been to make wikipedia a better (more sensible, more rational, more stable) place: Yes, that puts me head-to-head with a lot of people who don't want that kind of sanity (for reasons that seem very good to them), and yes, that can cause commotions.  growing pains…  However, if not even the arbitrators are ready for wikipedia to grow up, then there's no real point in the effort.  I'll get a couple of pubs out of this experience (knock wood), so it's good for me; Wikipedia can stay just like it is.


 * I swear, people make things so difficult… -- Ludwigs 2  08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To be blunt I think there is a pattern of sub-par behaviour in the diffs. They might not be the most damning diffs ever, but there is quite a bit of sub-par behaviour there. Additionally you've been topic banned from other topics already, so they don't want to just give another topic ban. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt;
 * The problem is that the attacks in this case seem to be far less serious than those he was previously admonished and sanctioned for in previous actions. Some would call that a sign of improvement. I also don't see probation as limp-wristed. Should he really be incapable of contributing civilly then it won't be long before he gets brought back on incivility and then there can be a lengthy site ban. If this can get him to contribute civilly, on the other hand, then the project will be all the better for it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all parties...except the one named, obviously...to the case should sit these sorts of sub-topics out, really. We've had ample time to have our say. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your tone is inappropriate. I don't want you off the project, and I never take pleasure in sanctioning, much less site-banning, an editor. As a point of accuracy, I also didn't include a siteban in my original decision; it was another arbitrator who suggested that we need to consider it, and the committee functions on majority decisions, though certainly I have said I will support the ban if my preferred remedies do not pass. However, your participation in the dispute over Muhammad has been confrontational, abrasive, and unprofessional. Specifically, though not exclusively, part of the problem is that you made "rationality" and "the truth" your objectives, as if the other disputants' views were surely the result of their own inadequate faculties; such intellectual superiority (which is surely unfounded - you are by no means the only rationalist or trained academic on this project!) is a serious problem. As a perfect example, look at the sign-off for your latest message: "I swear, people make things so difficult". If you don't see that as inappropriate, and can't see that a long-term history of comments of a similar nature is worse still, and that your admonishment earlier in the year and topic-ban in October demonstrates an ongoing issue with your approach to editing, then I don't think there is more for me to say here that will be useful to anybody. I will, of course, continue to check this page periodically, and I am happy to have my mind changed. AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @AGK: let's break this up into two parts, because there are two things going on here, both of which speak to the problem I'm facing.


 * First. In what way is my tone inappropriate? I was addressing the arbs in general, not you in particular, and I was referring to the following facts:
 * (as of this date) five of them had supported a ban based on evidence which - on its own - barely merits an admonition.
 * I've had at least four people tell me they want me site-banned directly to my face (granting that two of them are now site-banned themselves) - so the assertion that members of the committee might feel that way is not unreasonable.
 * You, personally have gone out of your way above to reject a less harsh remedy in favor of the strongest.
 * My suggestion that you (collectively) might want me off project may be wrong, but it is not unjustified based on your collective behavior. it calls for explanation.


 * People in the real world are accountable for the things they do, AGK - these proposed sanctions are trying to hold me accountable for things you assert I've done, right? - and arbiters don't get a pass on accountability just because they are arbiters (any more than the editors on Muhammad get a pass on accountability for doing things that look like prejudice because they are 'good wikizens'). Asking people to be accountable for what they do is not inappropriate and not uncivil; it's a necessary component of a healthy consensus system.


 * Second: I have never argued anywhere for 'the truth' (I'm philosophically skeptical of the concept of truth, if you must know). That aside, there is better reasoning and worse reasoning.  If you treat comments like this (from ASCII) or this (from Tarc) as though they are equivalent to rational discourse then you effectively destroy rational discourse. You end up with precisely what we saw in this debate: people smothering substantive discussion under a load of emotional tripe.  My aim has always been to convince people of the value of rational discourse based on its own merits, but if you consistently conflate ad hominem attacks with analytical thought, then you lose.  Or rather, Wikipedia loses.  Rational discussion cannot compete with ad hominem attacks; It will just get swallowed until all that's left is the "get in their face until they give up in disgust" approach that editors like Tarc and ASCII have perfected to a T.


 * So let's get back to the point: I would like you (AKA the arbiters) to tell me what I'm being sanctioned for, explicitly, because I'm not seeing it. You say I was "confrontational, abrasive, and unprofessional." The last is clearly not true, and I was no more confrontational or abrasive than any of the other editors in the dispute (and less than some, though they did get to spread their 'in-your-faceness' across six editors).  You say I'm not being collaborative: that's not true, and I can provide diffs to demonstrate it.  You seem to be annoyed because I suggest you are making things difficult for yourselves, but you are making things difficult for yourselves - surely you must see that.  Why does it annoy you that I point it out?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is irrational about observing that an editor has "retired" and then continues to post? Perhaps you should read WP:DIVA, or better nominate it for deletion as "irrational"?! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ascii: first, 'irrational' and 'not rational' are distinct concepts. 'irrational' means crazy; not rational means not following rational principles.  I don't think your statement was crazy, it just wasn't a functional move in rational discourse.


 * basically, your statement was a taunt: there was no purpose to it in terms of the conversation we were having. The statement was snotty (sense 2); snotty comments annoy people (which was certainly the result you got, wasn't it?)  So... Either you don't see the cause and effect relationship between snotty comments and annoyed responses or you do; doesn't matter to me which.  Both are intrinsically non-rational: rational discourse does its best to avoid provoking annoyed responses, because annoyance (and similar emotions) always distract from the business at hand.


 * You can think what you like about the things I say, but I'm rarely if ever snotty. If I have to comment on people I do my best to restrict my comments to behaviors immediately pertinent to the discussion.  On Muhammad, I raised the possibility of prejudice because I saw behavior that looked very much like prejudice, which needed to be discussed.  The worst you can say about Anthony's behavior is that it was human - he changed his mind, for whatever reason - and it certainly wasn't an issue that that was at all relevant to that thread or to the discussion as a whole.  Bringing it up was just pointlessly snotty.


 * In short, statements like this only serve to provoke people: they have no redeeming value to the conversation otherwise. such comments degrade the conversation into an emotional swamp, and make rational discourse impossible.  You should have had the foresight not to say it at all.  You should have had the hindsight to retract it as soon as you realized it was just a pointless piss-off line.  You had neither, and actually tried to double-down on it in that thread and this one.  That's not a rational set of behaviors if your goal is collegial discourse.  -- Ludwigs 2  09:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think is more likely to provoke an annoyed response in a reasonable man: comparing him with the KKK/autistics/psychopaths/Jerry Springer audience/little weasels/the deeply prejudiced, or perhaps telling him he can't reason ethically or at all for that matter, or mentioning that he "retired" but keeps posting? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you misunderstand, in precisely the same way you misunderstood on Muhammad. one avoids creating annoyance, but one does not avoid discussing what needs to be discussed.  one simply needs to be as delicate as possible about it.  I can't speak for anyone else, but if you go to any diff where I've used a word like that, you'll find one of two cases:
 * I lost my temper and said something stupid, which is not a valid rational move in a conversation and out to be redacted (yes, I can be non-rational too)
 * I was commenting on observable behavior that's causing problems on the article.
 * If in fact there is behavior on the article that observable and pertinent that makes such comparisons necessary, then both you and I should be allowed to use them. It takes some tact to raise these issue: normally I'm good at that, but on Wikipedia (unfortunately) there's a culture of hysteria that refuses to accept tactful statements.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored 4.2
The second version of this proposed principle says I have a problem with "balance." To some, that might imply giving "equal weight" to both religious objections and other considerations, when in some instances such objections may be genuinely trivial or vexatious, or vastly outweighed by didactic value or other factors. I'd prefer "...Wikipedia should weigh such opposition against scholarly discussion and views that favor inclusion when deciding on placement of such an image." or words to that effect. This formulation enjoins us to take such objections into account but implies nothing a priori about weight. If your deliberations on this proposition are not in some way sensitive, would you consider sharing them with the editors on this page? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc (conduct)
I'm worried about this proposed finding of fact. It includes: "Although he has been sensible in his interpretation of policy" and points to this exchange: How does that indicate he's been sensible in his interpretation of policy? The only thing it demonstrates is his failure or refusal to understand what I, Ludwigs and Hans were proposing. I bring this up because I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that Tarc has been sensible in that discussion. This is not hyperbole. I refer arbitrators to the collapsed content in here. It details the 46 significant edits Tarc made to the "debate" in October. It will also give you a whiff of the atmosphere generated by Tarc in that "debate." His "sensible interpretation of policy" was directed equally at me, Hans and anyone who dared to discuss image use at Muhammad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of linking to a version of evidence which was disallowed as too long, could you please link to Hans Adler's actual evidence and his subsequent explanation of it on the workshop page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sweet Jesus, anthony, will you drop it? I am now somewhat regretting reverting myself last night, as I think there's some stuff in there that you really need to let sink in.  We all had our say for the last month.  Consider the simple fact that other people do not agree with your assessment of the situation.  If I come out of this with a topic-ban as well, that's all there is to it, there's nothing I'm going to accomplish by stamping my foot and yelling.  If the admonishment passes, I will take it to heart and limit myself to consise, to-the-point statements, will not get sucked into to personal back-and-forths.  It's in their hands now, just chill and stop re-arguing the case. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ArbCom did not suggest that Tarc was "sensible in that discussion" (in fact, it is likely he will be admonished, and possibly topic banned, which suggests the complete opposite). However, the claim that we will not take religious fundamentalism into account is a sensible interpretation of policy.  Fundamentalism is, almost by definition, a very non-neutral viewpoint. Resolute 19:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you've stated it here it is not a sensible interpretation of policy at all. We represent each viewpoint in proportion to its prevalence in the best and most authoritative reliable sources. That reflection remains unaffected by whether any editor calls that viewpoint fundamentalist or mainstream religion. It either enjoys significant prevalence in the sources, or not. Perceived fundamentalism in itself is irrelevant. -- J N  466  03:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will point out that there were other things going on at that time that would support Tarc's feelings - such as numerous RfC attempts that were sidetracked, and stops elsewhere to circumvent RfC attempts - as well as less veiled attempts at clear religious censorship by some editors involved. Most arguments kept circling back down that drain, even with attempts at creating an unbiased RfC. And in that, Tarc may indeed have been right that there wasn't much of a point - things kept returning to "I want an RfC/the images removed because of religious beliefs". Eventually, that migrated into "They aren't educational" and a variety of other rationale. But honestly, at that point, (or any point/timeframe?), what valid rationale is there for an RfC that boils down to "we want to censor Wikipedia due to religious beliefs"? That would indeed be a waste of time - just like my 5 attempts at restarting the process from a non-religious standpoint were.
 * In the end, Tarc was correct - such an attempt (all of my attempts, and the numerous attempts of others) was a waste of time - and many ended in "let's use religious censorship, thinly hidden by other things, as justification". And that was also with Anthony, Jayen, Reso and various others trying to deal with things from valid perspectives. Thus, I see no issue in his interpretation of policy here. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Issues with the background v2.0
I think removing the following from the background would be sensible: "(which are more common than portrait-type images)" - I don't think any evidence has been found that shows this and when I looked the source I found (sorry no diff) seemed to be saying they were used about equally. I don't think this is on as solid ground as the other points about depictions. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is saying that editors engage[d] in political correctness more bannable than saying they are likely autistic, psychopaths, or have seriously twisted ethics?
I see this is shown as evidence of Tarc "casting aspersions", in which (as far as I can tell) the only aspersion cast is political correctness. If that statement is a bannable offense, what about comparing editors with autistics and psychopaths or concluding they have "seriously twisted ethics" as the only other explanation ? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wording error in Remedy 6.1 Hans Adler reminded
The new remedy 6.1 is headed "Hans Adler reminded", but the remedy starts "6,1) Hans Adler is admonished".

Given that 6.1 is explicitly intended to be an alternative to 6, which is entitled and starts "Hans Adler admonished", I'm fairly certain that this is just an oversight. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedian a profession?
So that one may speak of "unprofessional attitude" of editors here? Since Essjay maybe? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was close to asking something like that myself. I felt that maybe 'unprofessional' has become a euphemism in English, but now that you have actually asked this I googled it and got the impression that it isn't. If professionalism has become the new standard of behaviour hereabouts then that's a very important piece of information. I will try to make use of it next time I encounter a Randy or anyone else unquestionably unprofessional who is getting on my nerves. (Or is professional Randyism acceptable?) But I am not looking forward to trying to behave here in such a way that basically everybody agrees it's professional. That seems to be way too much effort for a hobby, and it was never expected of me in any of the three professions I have worked in so far.
 * I apologise for the previous paragraph, which was clearly unprofessional. I also apologise for commenting on it instead of simply self-censoring it – another act of unprofessionalism.
 * Is it allowed to point out that one of the arbitrators has behaved unprofessionally during this case, not to mention during the Arbcom elections, or would that be unprofessional? Hans Adler 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, I actually had second thoughts about nitpicking on that word and came back here to delete my (rhetorical) question. But since you replied, I do agree that using "unprofessional" as euphemism for stuff that is prohibited by other means like WP:DE, WP:UNCIVIL etc. is probably a bad habit for ArbCom to pick, especially since being a WP:RANDY is not actually prohibited by any Wikipedia policies, as you correctly point out. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't actually going to object to that phrase, because one of my own drums is that Wikipedia really ought to adopt some professional behavior standards. However, if one were going to rank-order the professionalism of people in this dispute, I'd be nearer the top the bottom.  Jayen would get top slot, not question, Hans would probably wrangle for second with Kww, I'd come in neck and neck with a couple of others after that, and then all the people who did nothing except throw out ad hominem attacks and whine and moan about how abused they are for being asked to actually discuss anything would fill out the low-end slots.


 * AGK was just looking for a quick and easy answer to a hard and difficult question, and that's what he came up with. can't blame him for it.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would take it to mean how one should behave at work. i.e. you behave politely and don't use bad language unless you know people well. It seems a pretty good way of simply explaining how you should behave - and make sure people don't act as you do down the pub or on a building site. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds right. Professionalism denotes conduct that is courteous, conscientious, businesslike.  It's also aspirational or experiential, (as in "she is a professional fan"), assuming conduct, as if something is a profession.  Wikipedia has professed a mission.  Relevant communities often socially enforce professionalism by members, usually informally, but sometimes, for the few, formally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's more than being polite and not using bad language. professionalism implies that people stay focused on task when they're on the job, don't get in the way of (much less fight with) other employees, don't do things that put the success or reputation of the company on the line...  If this had been the offices at Britannica, right now Jayen, Anthony and I would be redrafting the article on Muhammad, and Tarc, Resolute, and a few others would be fussing with their resumes looking for new jobs.  Britannica management would have been suspicious of even a hint of implied racism (they'd have wanted a strong overriding reason), and they wouldn't have tolerated for a moment some of the overt statements people have made (I'm picturing their response to someone trying to tell them that Britannica is "a western, secular encyclopedia so it doesn't need to coddle religious concerns"; the Brits fume and splutter better than any culture I've ever seen).  -- Ludwigs 2  10:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "the Brits fume and splutter better than any culture I've ever seen", Aside from the complete irrelevance of editors' nationalities, I see you feel it perfectly acceptable to cast racial aspersions in the same paragraph as saying that "even a hint of implied racism [shouldn't be] tolerated for a moment". Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is several generations since Encyclopedia Britannica was British. Cardamon (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thyrd: two points (and I made that joke precisely so that I could make this observation, you realize):
 * the difference between racism and humor is that racism unapologetically does things it knows people dislike; humor entertains people. there have been loads of British comedians (from Monty Python to Benny Hill to that more recent guy whose cross-dresses as part of his routine) who've used the schtick about blustering Britishers; there's no reason to believe anyone is likely to be insulted by this. But if you are honestly are insulted, my bad, I'll strike it.
 * that's the way these things ought to be handled. do you want me to strike?
 * you've provided me with another example of poor reasoning: you pointedly ignored the substantive point of professionalism in order to attack me as a person. It's actually astonishing: I talked about this very behavior just above, and here you are doing it again.  Note that Cardamon raised a similar objection, whicb (while off topic), manages to avoid attacking me.  That's a more sensible approach. -- Ludwigs 2  17:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a problem here. "Professionalism" is only meaningful related to a specific profession, and being a Wikipedian isn't, by its nature, being a profession - no pay, no qualifications or exams, no training programme. What being professional means varies vastly between, say, being a soldier and a dentist. I agree with Ludwigs that (like the background section) this comes from "AGK [was] just looking for a quick and easy answer to a hard and difficult question", but I can tell you that isn't being, er, "professional". Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

<UK-mode on> Anthony (AGK) has a charming Caledonian way of expressing himself (Burns Night approaches). As a Novocastrian, Southerners on the other hand will remain a mystery–Phil Knight, Roger Davies, SilkTork or Elen of the Roads. It's probably all cultural: Cushie Butterfield, T. Dan Smith, Lord Lambton (imagine having to sing the Lambton Worm at school!) and Stottie cake. Oh yes and the killer: Cuddy's Cave, where as a child I was almost eaten alive by midges. Forget the Pine Barrens or Scotty's Castle, this was life in the hard North. <UK-mode off> Mathsci (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume the term "professionalism" is used in the decision in the sense best described in User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism, an essay by one of our colleagues on the Committee that I regard very highly. If anyone would like to propose a better wording, please feel free. The reference to Essjay at the head of this thread is completely gratuitious. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that people making stuff up on their resume was considered unprofessional, and that the Essjay controversy might have been a wake-up call. But I guess that is indeed completely unrelated to how professionalism is construed by ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are "collegial" and "uncollegial" too far afield? Collect (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a more appropriate term in context in which it is used in this decision. Kirill's essay speaks of other things as being "unprofessional", such as advocacy or propaganda, which can be actually quite professional if you think what public relations people or even some clergymen do for a living. I'm afraid ArbCom has fallen pray to their own brand of wikispeak in this niche. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably so, but that is frankly very obscure - after 6 years & nearly 100K I edits I had never heard of it. AGK seems very set against rewordings, and there are more significant parts of the proposed decision where they are required, imo at least. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice essay. needs some revisions, but it ought to be policy, and enforced.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't most people know what it means to behave in a professional manner, without having to refer to an essay? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Professional does not necessarily mean "friendly" or even "civilized" . It does usually mean making a living from a particular endevour . With few exceptions (like Essjay) I think most Wikipedians have not managed to monetize their involvement in the site by becoming an employee of the wiki-focused companies. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If editors are unclear as to the meaning of the word, it would make sense to consult a dictionary. In the sense used here, it's defined as "characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession; exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace" by Merriam Webster. That seems quite appropriate. -- J N  466  19:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would still be preferable that ArbCom chose a less polysemic word in this context. User:Collect has suggested a good alternative above. "[un]courteous" would also work. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this, I don't perceive any significant problem with the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation
In principle 6.2, about the "Principle of least astonishment", could we please add a link to the WMF information? Though the parties and arbs may be well aware of the WMF resolution and study at this point, other editors reviewing this case may not know of it. So it would be helpful if there were a link so they could easily find the full description. --Elonka 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which link would that be having the "full description"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the place where it's mentioned: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content. Or is it discussed somewhere else? --Elonka 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was discussed somewhere else, for example at Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment, where most editors were unable to find this "full description" of the principle, although they were provided with the WMF link as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That page was created as a followup to the WMF resolution. It would probably be best to link directly to the WMF page. --Elonka 03:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a link per these suggestions. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Background to dispute - finding of fact
I have been aware for some time that the parties object to some content in the summary that deals with the arguments of individual factions. (A couple of parties also object to some sentences that speak about the behavioural issues of the dispute, but I find these objections to be without merit.) My inclination is to pass the finding anyway, because to me it achieves its purpose of informing the readers of our decision about the general history of the dispute and to explain why we came to hear the case. However, it has been suggested that the finding could cause dispute in future because it is not accurate to the letter. Therefore, please entertain me and explain briefly why the accuracy of the proposal, where it deals with the technical arguments surrounding this dispute, is important to the objective of resolving the case. If the aim of the proposal is to explain in very broad terms what form the factions in this dispute take, why are what I perceive to me the finer points of these sentences critical?

I may have annoyed some editors by seeming to disregard their earlier suggestions to improve the finding as it existed in its "summary" form. To this, I can only apologise and say I thought my limited time was better spent on drafting the more significant aspects of the decision than on endlessly refining one proposal. I was alone as drafter of this case and struggled in my efforts to solicit feedback during internal workshopping. (My colleagues are all very busy people, and this is my first draft decision so it was never destined for perfection.) However, if I can be convinced that the proposal is individually important, I am happy to change my mind. AGK  [</nowikI>• ]  00:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Response by FormerIP

 * If the aim is to explain in very broad terms what form the factions in this dispute take, then I think it would be as well to stick to this aim.
 * What the summary does, in part, is make judgements, in very specific terms, that certain of the bases of the position of one party in the content dispute are correct. This is alarming, because ArbCom is supposedly not meant to intervene in content disputes.
 * Specifically, the summary makes the following claims:
 * That periods in which Islamic artwork (whatever, precisely, that means) was common are "atypical"
 * That images of Muhammad are uncommon in Islam
 * That calligraphic representations (of Mohammed, it is assumed) are comparatively common is Islamic art (compared to what is not stated)
 * That veiled images (of Mohammed, it is assumed) are more common than portraiture in Islamic art
 * I would hold that these four statements are either wrong or misleading. At the very least, they are contentious. They are also not helpful in terms of explaining the background to the dispute, because that does not require you to give your opinion. I don't think anything is lost if you simply leave out these incautious statements, but you could couch them so they may not be read as finding of fact ("in the view of some editors...").
 * Incidentally, I am not so much annoyed by this. I'm more disappointed at seeing ArbCom in action. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Response by Alanscottwalker

 * I think you've done great work but what I don't want to see is editors arguing in content disputes about "Arbcom says, such and such, about content, so, that's the way it is," whether it's history, art history, religion or anything else. I don't want to see arguments about what Arbcom meant by 'Islamic art,' 'unveiled,' 'atypical,' etc., when that is not only unnecessary and not your focus but a distraction and not your expertise. Those things, and especially their relevance, must be left to the open mind of the community that you are asking for. You're not a reliable source, you're not trying to be, and editors should not be able to misconstrue you in that way. That's why I proposed, above, something like this to obviate all of that:
 * Proposed disclaimer. "The purpose of this summary is not to rule on or prejudice the validity or relevance of any content related claim or argument, nor to describe the detailed positions of individual editors; rather, it is to back-story, in summary form, some of the issues under discussion, and procedural history, at the time this case came to arbitration."
 * (Also, I am sure you have clicked on Johnbod's user page, but that may explain some of his exasperation about use of terminology.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Serious consideration should also be given to Johnbod's points (below) and his plans a or b. You may decide to do that instead of a disclaimer, or in addition.  The hatted discussion, (arguing about "what AGK means" and "wrong in its detail") reinforces the concern, that these things can bring Arbcom into disrepute, and lead to arguing about Arbcom that should not and need not be.  It is also important to consider, that while some might say today we "think" we understand the context (and how its not ruling on content), in the future as memories go and others are involved (including "uninvolved" enforcers), that will not be the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think a short disclaimer of some kind is a simple way to avoid the summary being misused. Its purpose was clearly to describe the context of the case from the drafter's point of view, if I understand correctly. Mathsci (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Response by Johnbod

 * Thank you for the opportunity to respond. It is not a case of not being "accurate to the letter"; as a summary of the arguments in the dispute parts of it are fundamentally flawed, because they go into too much detail and get that detail wrong. You have replied to previous complaints that only the "wording" is objected to, but in a quasi-legalistic context "wording" is all there is. These are not "finer points" but sentences that are just all wrong. The "finding of fact", if left as it is, is bound to greatly confuse and complicate the upcoming RFC, which actually has the job, unlike this case, of dealing with these matters. When I asked Eraserhead above: "why does the arbcom need to show off its expertise in Islamic art history?", he replied "So we have somewhere to start for our further discussions." The draft as is makes the arbcom rule on matters of art historical fact, which it should not do in the first place, as content matters, and which, if it does, it should attempt to get correct, which these statements are not. There was little to no evidence on these matters produced in the case - as we know this section is virtually unaltered from the draft given very soon after the case opened.

I won't go into the inadequacies of the proposed text as a summary of the arguments of the parties, and especially those of the "keepers". There are several statements of art-historical fact given as from the committee:


 * a)"In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare" - contentious because so vague; the main evidence from RS is that there are "countless" such images (Gruber)
 * b)"an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common" - just untrue, and presented as part of the wrong side of the argument; a "removers" argument, long abandoned by them
 * c)"Images of Muhammad are uncommon in Islam" - acceptable as a statement, imo, but does arbcom need to say this?
 * d)"calligraphic images (which are comparatively common in Islamic art)" - made meaningless by the confused context; apparently these are not "images of Muhammad" etc
 * e)"veiled representations (which are more common than portrait-type images)" - nobody knows; no RS for this; role of this issue in the argument completely mis-stated.
 * f)"no images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life" (originally "few") - agreed by all

These statements are concentrated in two sentences which are flawed from every point of view and should be removed. Those members of the committee who, like myself, have real-world legal experience, will understand that cutting corners in terms of "wording" - ie accuracy, precision and correct terminology - is the worst thing to do. I'm sure you know the saying that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. I have presented above: a) a shorter redraft removing the controversial material, and adding two new sentences of new material, and also b) a still shorter version that just cuts the two sentences that are entirely problemmatic, both as summaries of the argument and in the statements of art-historical fact given as from the mouth of arbcom. Fortunately the rest of the statement flows ok without these. I think b) is adequate for the purposes of the arbcom decision, and does not leave statements that will prejudice or confuse the RFC, and are findings on content matters. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to FormerIP
What you've written is a bit like seeing someone argue that "No, I think it is misleading to say that white light is made up of several colours ... at the most you could say that some editors have claimed that white light is made up of several colours". The basic facts at issue here are quite well known. Source after source has been provided to help out those who are unaware of them.            No sources to the contrary have been provided. Earlier on, an admin argued that Muslim scholars should not be considered reliable sources on Islam in Wikipedia, while said admin himself was clearly ignorant even of such basic matters as the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, or which one of the two would be the majority group with the stronger feelings about depicting the Prophet. How exactly is such behaviour different from that described in WP:RANDY? -- J N  466  03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Was a reversal of Sunnis and Shiites in any way relevant to the point I was making? While you persist in being upset about my assertion, you have failed to argue with it. Why is it that we routinely treat people as biased when they write about their employer, business partner, or family member, but not when they write about things that they worship? Why is it that if I worked for a man all of my statements about him would be treated with grave suspicion, but if I worshipped him I should be treated as unbiased?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I have argued with it. I have told you that in the real world of publishing and education, every decision-maker would laugh you out of the room if you suggested the criterion you seek to apply, and it would probably result in your never being offered a job again. Try it – write to any university press and suggest to them that they should stop publishing Christian theologians writing about Jesus and Christianity, Jewish scholars writing about the Bible, or Muslim scholars writing about Muhammad. Do you really not know this? For if you don't, you are truly ignorant; and if you do, then you are not interested in the real word, but wish for Wikipedia to become some kind of alternative to it, made in your image. -- J N  466  03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I say that any of those things should happen? Of course not, no more than I expect the Ford Motor Company to stop writing about the virtues of Ford vehicles. Doesn't prevent me from identifying the source as potentially biased.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that GM, Volkswagen or Toyota will be unbiased when writing about Ford vehicles? Or someone who believes that private motor cars should be abolished before they ruin the environment? I don't. All reputably published voices should be reflected. And as long as reputable university presses don't exclude authors from topic areas based on their personal faith, academics writing about their own faith and key figures in it will be reliable sources in Wikipedia, just like those who follow a different faith. -- J  N  466  12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Jayen, when was the "atypical period when Islamic artwork was common", and why is this part of the case made by the "image keeping" side of the argument? Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate in its detail, but close enough in its overall effect. Islam has a 1,400-year history that began in 610. As far as we know, and according to the sources we cite, Muhammad images first appeared around 700 years later in book miniatures that showed him as a full-faced figure. These images were not public art. They were privately commissioned manuscripts, used in private contexts; not seen among the general populace; nor were similar images of Muhammad ever used in Quran manuscripts, mosques or other public buildings. The images occurred in a courtly tradition of historical and biographical writing, somewhat influenced in its beginning by Buddhist religious art previously common in the region, and originally commissioned by (or aimed at) a Mongol ruling elite that was converting to Islam from other religions at the time. This regional tradition of book miniatures depicting Muhammad's face largely came to an end about 200 years later, when veiled images became the norm in book miniatures, and due to the influence of Muslim jurists, many of the regions concerned eventually stopped producing Muhammad images altogether. Recent and contemporary Muhammad images are generally restricted to Shiite areas, mainly in Iran and Turkey. The Arabian peninsula, as well as North-Africa and Spain, never had any tradition whatsoever of figurative depictions of Muhammad; nor can I recall ever seeing any images produced in Indonesia or Malaysia. Would you add, or disagree with, anything in that summary? -- J N  466  04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayen466 you edit the German article, in which there has been an unveiled image in the lede for a long time. Are you adopting a different stance in the two places and, if so, why? Mathsci (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. -- J N  466  04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a three word phrase, but only inaccurate in detail?? So the atypical period begins c. 1315, and continues until 2012? And you don't say why this is part of the argument for keeping the images, where the draft places it. Do you honestly think this sentence is worth retaining? And the other one? Johnbod (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on what AGK means. If he's referring to unveiled book miniatures, that atypical period mostly ended after just 200 years, in the early 16th century, when veiled depictions became "normative", as Gruber puts it. Even when speaking more generally, the era of miniatures in illustrated manuscripts ended well before 2012 in most regions, didn't it? How many Muhammad paintings have the geographical areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, or indeed any Sunni region, produced over the past 200 years? That's before we get to those regions that never had any book miniature tradition to begin with. (The argument was certainly made that we had to use images from this region and time period, even if they were unrepresentative, because no one else had created any.) -- J N  466  07:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As for Johnbod's comment "no RS for this", relating to veiled images being more common than unveiled ones, that is not true; we have for example. -- J  N  466  04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What, you think that picture caption covers the whole of Islamic art? There is no scholarly "corpus" or catalogue of all the images - no one has ever counted them, or seen them all. Johnbod (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources claiming the opposite, that unveiled images are the more common type? Malcolm Clark, linked above, only mentions veiled images, as do other sources. Here is another source says that "Out of respect for the Prophet, he is almost always shown veiled, for example in the Ottoman miniatures from c. 1594 (60 and 61). Muhammad was, however, depicted without a veil in other earlier works, for example ...". The Encyclopedia Americana states that "His face is usually shown veiled". Schimmel says, "To be sure, we find representations of the Prophet in quite a number of miniature paintings in the Turkish, Persian, and even Indian traditions. In later times his face is usually veiled, although early fourteenth-century paintings show him unveiled as well, a practice that today is vehemently attacked as heresy by Muslim fundamentalists and even by large parts of the intelligentsia." I will listen to arguments based on sources contradicting these, but not to arguments along the lines of "how do we know whether these authors counted them all". -- J N  466  07:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When I asked for "brief comment", I did not have threaded conversations or rebuttals in mind. Please try to limit your responses to the views of the other parties. Thank you, AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  12:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will change my support to the simpler Locus of dispute finding. AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  20:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks AGK. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

R1: Battleground
Isn't R1's community discussion just going to turn into a polarized yes/no vote? Stifle (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so. The discussion is going to be constrained by Arbcom's statements and clarifications on policy for starters. Then we are going to decide on editorial grounds which images to include, and whether to include a depiction in the infobox, which should let us reach a sensible conclusion.
 * As per finding of fact 1, which looks certain to pass, we will be able to use mediation and other similar tools if needed, but wider input from the community as specified by finding of fact 2, and remedy 9 make it clear that in general those people who are involved in the dispute currently should take a step back and that other people should get involved. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation resolution
This proposed finding of fact includes: 38 editors !voted. Most (possibly all) either expressed confusion about the meaning of the proposition or demonstrated clear misunderstanding in their comments, and many comments were objecting not to the adoption of the resolution, but to the wording of that particular proposal. (See the list of quotes immediately below the !votes.) So, I'm not sure it's accurate to say the proposal to adopt the resolution was rejected by the community, the wording of that proposed guideline was rejected. I'm very troubled by this proposed FoF. Thirty nine Twenty seven very confused or mistaken editors rejecting a specific form of words does not equal the community rejecting the Foundation resolution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Only twenty seven opposed, and most were opposed on procedural or clarity grounds. 08:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't really your place to characterize other editors' good-faith opinions on the least astonishment principle as "confused" or "mistaken". I am reasonably confident that those who participated in that discussion were quite clued-in as to what the proposal meant and what its impact on the project would be.  It would be best to reconsider your wording of your "concern" here. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Which aspect of this FoF do you disagree with? That a proposal was made, or that it was rejected?  The statement does not preclude another, more specific, proposal being made in the future.  Resolute 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The FoF says that the community rejected its own proposal, which was to wholesale import the WMF BoT resolution. I agree it is not sensible to conclude that community has rejected the WMF BoT resolution. If you read my comment at Principle 6.1, you will see I believe the community will eventually build a good policy around the WMF BoT resolution, but that will take time, and the development of good policy will be hampered by people running around waving POLA in discussions as if it is policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with every word of that comment you just linked to. I would like to see NFCC applied to controversial content. Nevertheless, the proposed FoF is wide open to misinterpretation. Anyone reading it could be forgiven for thinking that that RfC rejected the Foundation resolution. It didn't. It rejected the form of words in the proposed guideline, as much as it could be said to have decided anything, given the repeatedly expressed confusion about whether the resolution addresses this project, and about its meaning, among other things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)If that was your intent, then you expressed it very poorly. I saw your oppose vote on principle 6.2 and its rationale and thought to myself: "I had no idea that John Vandenberg is such a blatant wikilawyer." Your proposed FOF 1.2 goes in the same direction. It is unbalanced in that it says for no apparent reason that a concrete and rather poor proposal made by an inexperienced editor was rejected and says nothing which could offset this. This is going to be used by wikilawyers who want to argue that the principle itself has been rejected and that there is no consensus, and never will be consensus, to implement it in policy. (It appears to me that Kww has been arguing in that way consistently on the Workshop page.) Your support for principle 6.1 is not going to offset it. As you are currently the only one supporting it, your support seems unlikely to have any effect. So the only thing it does is make it clear to those who look very closely and with an open mind that you didn't intend to support the wikilawyering.
 * Or maybe I am too fast and you are in the process of making further proposals? Hans Adler 20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I echo Anthony's concerns. This FoF has an unfortunate similarity to the examples of WP:SYN I helped draft a few years ago. The proposal to make the POLA resolution a guideline was rejected as premature even by editors who want to see POLA-based policy, but correctly realised that in order to write a guideline, you can't just take a Board Resolution and write "Guideline" at the top. When the Board passed the BLP resolution, we didn't just take the text of the resolution and call that WP:BLP policy, either, nor would a proposal to do so have passed. -- J N  466  23:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems to be John Vandenberg's point. If you say 'consider the resolution,' and people don't think it's a useful guideline. You haven't said much of anything useful, except to point to a resolution that people don't think is a useful guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood there, Alan. The majority of respondents at that RfC, including me, were arguing against the proposed wording, not against the proposition that we adopt the Foundation resolution. It is important that any FoF issuing from this case does not inadvertently mislead due to ambiguity. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No misunderstanding. I agree with John, "The FoF says that the community rejected its own proposal [for a guideline], which was to wholesale import the WMF BoT resolution." Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm not being clear then. Though the question in that RfC was "shall we accept the foundations recommendation in regards to this resolution and include it as having WP:Guideline status or not?" the answer from the community was not, "No, we don't accept the Foundation's recommendation," as the present wording of the FoF can reasonably be understood as saying. Many of the opposers were in favour of the spirit of the resolution. The answer was "No, we don't accept what you've written here as a guideline." That distinction needs to be made clear in the FoF, to avoid inadvertently misleading readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think readers will be misled. You've told me before it is not part of English Wikipedia policy,, and it's still not part of English Wikipedia policy, which is John's point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to expand on Hans' point: The assertion that the community has rejected the Foundation's entreaty has been put at least four times and probably more since that RfC closed, and one subheading on the evidence page was Principle of Least Astonishment has been soundly rejected by the Wikipedia community, to which I responded, Principle of least astonishment has not been soundly rejected by the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Observation
My participation on this talk page over the last few weeks has been extremely limited, IIRC this will be at most the 3rd-4th comment. Without my participation, I note that;


 * Ludwigs2 has expressed a complete unwillingness to recognize his conduct as detrimental to the Muhammad image discussions, and continues to argue the case that he is right and the rest of us are wrong, or unwilling/unable to counter-argue him intelligently. (primarily L2 and conduct)
 * Both Hans Adler and Anthonycole egg Ludwigs on in the above section, the three of them casting a wide net of aspersions on the Arbitration Committee, using such terms as "general mobbing", "scapegoat", and "bandwagon"
 * This behavior is also continued in Alternative action for Ludwigs
 * Anthonycole complaining about wording of my conduct finding: Tarc (conduct)
 * Ludwigs is again excusing his calling opther editors racists; Since when is Wikipedian a profession?
 * Ludwigs again reintroduces the debate to Jimbo's talk page, where the same arguments rehash; Could you ask ArbCom to respond to my question?

What this shows is that 3 of the primary advocates of less depictions of Muhammad have not ceased their activities one bit; they still believe themselves to be the smartest in the room, and others who disagree with them have defects both intellectual and moral. The same behavior that led to the Arbcom being filed in the first place, the same behavior that these 3 carried on on the Workshop page, and the same behavior we see now on this talk page.

I have been cited in a "it takes two to Tango" manner when discussing Ludwigs behavior, but I believe that since his (and others) behavior continues unabated, even without my participation, that that undercuts the "Tarc is also at fault" conclusions somewhat, and I stress somewhat. I readily admit that I have an acid tongue and do not suffer fools gladly (relax, it is just a saying), but I believe the behavior cited above shows that while I may be caustic, that that causticness did not inflame the discussions to any significant degree. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Request
In light of the above, I request of those who have already voted, or intend to, for Remedy 4 a reconsideration in favor of 4.1, and note that 2 days ago I expressed a willingness to proceed with caution and discretion in future image-related discussions. But hey, for all I know, this could backfire and lead to more topic-ban votes, but IMO there are mitigating circumstances here to consider. That is all. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did nothing to warrant the treatment you dished out to me on that talk page. Nothing. I was polite, pithy, and constructive throughout. "Not suffering (your designated) fools" is no longer acceptable anywhere here. You need to undergo a major behaviour change, Tarc, and that goes far beyond bighting your tongue on image discussions. You appear to have learned nothing from this process. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Algorithm:
 * Step 1: Propose that people disagreeing with you are likely autistic, psychopaths, or incapable of reason in that particular instance or more generally. Express this hypothesis in a professional language. Don't forget to remember people that you issue this theory from the high ground of an intellectual and scholar.
 * Step 2: Show indignation when anyone objects to the above. If anybody's tone flares up in their reply, like they dare use sarcasm, you now have prima facie evidence that you were right when you formulated your hypothesis.
 * Step 3: If the indignation is shared by a larger group of editors, you now have proof that you are being mobbed in the most disrespectful way for your professional efforts. Suggest that evidently you and those who share the opinion you formulated at step 1 are now the only editors professional enough to make the correct decision in the content dispute.
 * Step 4: Retire, complain to ArbCom, and win?!
 * ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I appreciate the hatting, I am really not interested in yet another threaded shouting match, that is entirely the point of this request in the first place. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. That was rude of me. I apologise. Thank you for pointing it out. If you see me behaving inappropriately here, please, always point it out.
 * A few days ago I slandered a former editor. Three editors were kind enough to point out the inappropriateness of my comments. I've learned from that. And, thanks to them I corrected the record. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not the topic of the discussion hatted above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion (with binding provision)
This mostly seems OK, but it doesn't appear to have provision for moving images to a spinout article, should one be created.

For example, say the discussion comes to the consensus that section "M" needs to be illustrated with two "important" images, but later the editorial consensus is to move most of that section into a sub-article and expand on it there. Two illustrations (of any sort) are now disproportionate to that section's relative weight in this article; but they have to remain as there isn't provision in this resolution for this situation. It might also be helpful to allow this binding agreement to also apply to spinout articles for the balance of the three years.

I don't think this is very likely, but it's far better to have a provision that isn't needed than to have a need for which there is no provision. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for bringing that up. I did propose some ideas in that regard about "spinning off", recently at Talk:Muhammad. Comments welcome! Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for wording of FoF 1.2
For the wording "but was rejected..." substitute "and the proposed wording was rejected..."? It's true that at this point the community has no defined guideline specifically on the topic, but untrue that any such guideline could never conceivably exist. Franamax (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker, above, describes it thus: "This was mentioned in the arbitration and it closed late yesterday, rejecting the proposed wording on the guideline." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to your suggestion. Thx. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What I think a fair assessment of the WP:POLA RfC is that no practical guidance could be derived by the community from the WMF resolution, for a variety of reasons, most of which are related to ambiguities in the resolution itself that required belated clarifications by email from board members, and even then were couched in mitigating language along the lines of "I don't speak for the board, but..." etc. Still unexplained is how POLA is supposed to apply to religious controversies, when no reliable sources use the principle in a remotely similar context, and when the WMF resolution itself did not really explain how that would work, and&mdash;worse&mdash;the Harieses report they linked to in the resolution proposed to treat the "sacred" material differently from other controversial material. See also my comments on above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ting Chen's the chairman, and he didn't qualify his advice with any "speaking just for myself" language. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, that was Jimbo . However, that email didn't seem convincing enough about opinion of the board, at least to some editors. Did you follow up with the board/CEO on that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm assuming for the moment that Ting Chen is speaking for the board but I was hoping, per my proposed FoF, that the Arbitration Committee would survey the board members, or at least confirm with Ting Chen that he's speaking for the board, before clarifying the issue here in an FoF.


 * In fact, I think the committee should put my proposed FoF to the next board of trustees meeting, along with any other clarifications they deem necessary, for ratification by the board. Without clarification of these points, this project's ability to respond intelligently to the resolution is significantly, fatally probably, impaired.


 * On your second point, as you know, though the Harrises proposed treating sacred images differently from other controversial content, the working group explicitly contradicted that in their recommendations, and the board acted on that recommendation, explicitly. I don't see what you're driving at with this point. Are you still saying that, though the board has explicitly urged us to pay particular attention to such images, we should somehow take that advice less seriously because the Harrises were of a different view? Or is there some other implication I'm missing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes, we know that since the /Evidence phase. Unfortunately, the WMF resolution, and even the ArbCom decision in FoF 1.2, only link to the Harrises report, but not to WGCC one, probably because that didn't mention Muhammad (nor was it linked in the board resolution for that matter). So, on one hand we have this WMF-board rejection of the distinction between religiously controversial and sexual/violent controversial material. On the other hand, we bring up the same overruled Harrises report section on sacred images because it mentions Muhammad. There's some cognitive dissonance in that, and it has confused the community in the POLA RfC as to what WMF-hosted documents are authoritatively defining POLA, but I guess the Arbs just want to get this over with, as there's not much they can do to clarify the binding status of the various WMF documents on POLA (without seriously overstepping their authority). So confusion soldiers on, but I guess that is about par for Wikipeida governance. (We're definitely implementing an image filter, but we have no definitive plans for how to do that.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. The committee can do something useful here, though. You and I, poles apart on just about everything, are agreed, I think, on the need for clarification of the meaning of fundamental elements of that resolution: Is it (at the moment) mandatory? Does every paragraph apply to Wikipedia? Are they using "controversial" the way the Harrises use it? How are they using "curation" in relation to this project? Can they offer a clearer form of words to explain their use of POLA (involving "a reasonable person's expectation" perhaps)?


 * And we're agreed that it won't be possible for any useful discussion to be had on the relevance of the resolution until these fundamental unknowns are clarified.


 * You and I probably have a better grasp of these points than most, and we agree on some of the answers to those questions, but we can't expect every !voter to do the background reading and deliberation we have, and we can't expect them to accept our interpretation. The committee could draft a letter to the trustees, asking for clarification. I'd be willing to help draft the letter, would you? We're both familiar with the most frequent queries and misunderstandings surrounding the resolution.


 * Jimbo warns us against undue tea-leaf reading when interpreting the resolution. Until these incredibly basic points of meaning and relevance are made clear, tea-leaf reading is what we're left with. See Alan's reasonable points below. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be far better if ArbCom acknowledged the lack of progress in the community's interpretation of WMF's POLA, and consequently ArbCom should address a request for clarification to the WMF board. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying they should only seek clarification on the meaning of POLA, and not the other elements I mentioned? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions for Kirill regarding Comment in FoF 1.2
Kirill Lokshin states: ''"It is unclear to me, in any case, whether the community has the authority to reject a WMF mandate in principle; arguably, the most that the community could do would be to reject a particular proposal as regards the implementation of that mandate." ''

1) What mandate? In particular, what mandate in the resolution is relevant to this case, specifically? (If, you could quote the particular part that would be helpful.)

2) Could the community decide there is no mandate (for example, it's a request that maybe rejected)?

3) Is a user outside the community if they find no mandate (e.g., violated their terms of use or a policy)?

4) Assuming a mandate, may the community find it not actionable (e.g., it is too confusing, or sufficient responsive policy already exists in English Wikipedia, etc.)?

5) If the community rejects implementation of the mandate (assuming there is one) in policy/guideline or fails to adopt it, what does that mean for the individual user in this case?

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer your questions:
 * The WMF resolution contains a number of potentially actionable points, but the two which are particularly relevant to this case are:
 * (a) "Wikimedia projects are not censored."
 * (b) "[C]ontent on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain."
 * In my view, the community does not have the authority to reject a WMF mandate while remaining within the constraints of the normal WMF/community relationship. The community presumably could refuse to implement those instructions and engage in something akin to civil disobedience to protest them; but the ultimate decision on whether the mandate was to remain in place would continue to rest with the WMF even in that scenario.
 * As with any "rule" on Wikipedia, any individual user who violates the rule is liable to be sanctioned for doing so. However, it's important to note that this applies only when the rule is actually violated in practice; disagreeing with the existence [of a] rule in principle is perfectly acceptable so long as one doesn't actually violate it.
 * If the community finds that the mandate is covered by existing policy, then there's no rejection of it at all; rather, the community is merely stating that the mandate has already been implemented. Similarly, a decision that the mandate is "too confusing" as written is merely a call for the WMF to clarify its instructions, not a rejection of the WMF's intent in issuing them.
 * The community's broader action (or lack thereof) with regard to implementing the WMF mandate is outside the scope of this particular case. As far as individual users are concerned, the Committee will examine their conduct during the course of the specific dispute, rather than their stance on the WMF mandate.
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Kirill: Thank you for your prompt and thorough response. Please note: I added the bracketed words to your point 3, as that appears to be a typo. Correct, as warranted.  As I understand it, those two principals you point to are already covered by current policy (not censored and relevant). Your last point troubles me somewhat on ambiguity with respect to guidance going forward, but in light of your proceeding points, if I am correct in my understanding, than I don't foresee any problems. Sorry, about misspelling your name, I have fixed that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, and perhaps ironically, this is almost like trying to decipher what your god wants you to do. When I read the top half of the resolution, I see no mandate being ordered.  In fact, the only absolute statement made is "Wikimedia projects are not censored".  Everything else is phrased as "we support...".  We are, in fact, in this arbitration because an editor initiated an discussion argument that attempted to use the phrase "we support the principle of least astonishment" in a manner that contradicts that one absolute statement.


 * Overall, I think the Foundation expressed an opinion, and we as a community have the right to interpret it as we will. And outright rejection is a valid interpretation.  Not that that is necessary, of course.  WP:NOTCENSORED is already policy, so there is no conflict there.  The principle of "user choice" obviously refers to the image filter that the Foundation intends to ram through.  "Least astonishment" is just another way of saying that content should be relevant.  There really is nothing, aside from the call to create an image filter, that isn't already covered in policy and guidelines.  The only thing the Foundation accomplished here was to waste hundreds of hours of editor (and arbitrator) time by crafting a vaguely worded and completely redundant resolution that battleground warriors then used to rehash arguments that have been defeated several times with predictable results. Resolute 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they were broadly addressing multiple projects, so speaking broadly makes sense, although there are, as we see, risks to that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Has either of you read the three pages of the Harris report and the working group recommendations? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've read the tea leaves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question
Thank you Kirill for distilling the main points of the mandate. Let's see what it means in practice. If a neo-Nazi reader expects the article on the Holocaust to say it's a myth, should Wikipedia honor that expectation according to "(b)" above? I hope not, so "respect their expectations" probably should be read as some sort of averaging over the [expected] readership of any given WMF project. This may depend on the project, for example the Simple English Wikipedia has a different target audience (and I recall that the WMF has also proposed a WikiJunior. ) I've already pointed out in the /Workshop that the Arabic Wikipedia has remarkably different illustrations compared to the English Wikipedia even for articles like man and woman in that no humans are depicted in them. The image filter referendum also pointed in that direction, namely participants in that Wikipedia were among the top potential customers for the image filtering feature. So, it is clear that even excluding small groups of the world's population as "fringe", there are large segments that have conflicting expectations on images for many articles. Furthermore, it is apparent that some WMF projects follow cultural customs prevalent only in some parts of the world, namely those parts where the majority of the readership speaking that language lives. Given these facts, how is the English Wikipedia community expected to solve the problem of religiously controversial material according to the WMF mandate "(b)"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

GAR vs. RfC
I would like to make the committee aware that the Muhammad article is lined up for a GAR after this case closes, to check through the prose, which clearly needs attention. It is not out of the question that in the course of such an effort, with input and guidance from GAR regulars, editors committed to doing general content work on the article might reach an agreement on the images issue as well.

So would it be an idea to defer the RfC until after such time as the GAR has concluded? Cf. Stifle's comment above, as well as the conversation between Johnbod and myself here. Cheers. -- J N  466  13:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have written on your talk page of an unspecified category of editors who are "disruptive and clueless" whom you do not wish to be involved in future discussions. How appropriate is it for you to be making that kind of remark; and how appropriate is it for you or other parties in this case to be currently involved in formulating an RfC?  Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's encouraging to see those two collaborating like that. This could be interesting. I think it would be very appropriate for the article to go through GAR before the RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have real problems with seeing Jayen466 devise an RFC alone. Working with Johnbod makes me feel better about it, but not enough to prevent me from being concerned that his untenable interpretation of NPOV wouldn't be inextricably woven into his presentation of the issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd welcome input from GA reviewers with, presumably, a different focus than you, me, FormerIP and others. The openness vs respect controversy may not even arise there but, if it does, their views may help. The GAR could run while the terms of the RfC are being hammered out, which might take some time --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a forlorn hope that an eleventh hour GAR will save the day. If something needs to wait (I agree with Jayen that this would be sensible) then I would suggest that holding a GAR is absolutely non-urgent.

With regard to the RfC, I don't think there is any harm in any editor working on anything they like. So as not to waste everyone's time, though, any RfC question should gain the broad support of parties before being tabled (this may take time, but it won't actually waste it). --FormerIP (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Article on Wikimedia Islam images contributer
Check out for some images issues relevant to the article, in particular the Kaaba. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Application to articles on Islam
Seeing as Muhammad is the prophet of Islam would articles "relating to Muhammad" mean articles concerning Islam itself, even without Muhammad directly mentioned? Given that this focuses on depictions of Muhammad it seems like the proposed wording is a bit too broad.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. That does not sound like a fun argument to have.  Maybe, "articles whose subject is Muhammad"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This was a proposed remedy by Elonka, which AKG supported byut I opposed, saying: "Oppose: "All Muhammad-related articles, broadly interpreted.." will involve thousands of articles on Islamic subjects, large numbers of which may get caught up in other disputes that are nothing to do with this one, and potentially represents a discriminatory approach to editing on one particular religion. There's a huge potential for unintended trouble here. Restricted to "controversial images" (but certainly not all such, as Elonka suggests below), or better to "figurative images representing the person of Muhammad" it might make sense." She added that it might be extended to all controversial images on any subject. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I put a neutrally worded tickler, asking AGK, on his talk page, to take a look at this discussion and the preceding article. I think it maybe that serious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have proposed another alternative within the discretionary sanctions section, in order to address these concerns. Thanks, AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  11:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that, you just take the wording that says "relating to Muhammad" and add in "depictions of" so it becomes articles "relating to depictions of Muhammad"? That does appear to be the main point of contention for this arbitration case.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think any article for which the primary subject is Muhammad could have arguments about depictions of him. I think this balance is about right in the new proposal. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that "broadly interpreted" would mean that, even if an article doesn't appear to be about depictions of Muhammad, it would apply if someone tries to insert something about depictions of Muhammad.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the more narrow wording proposed in the new remedy only apply, if the main topic of the article is Muhammad, like for example Muhammad in Islam? Should it be broader, do you think? The way you have framed it, suggests that it would only apply to Depictions of Muhammad but I'm not sure that's what you meant? Or is your concern with articles like Black Stone or Kaaba and whether it should apply to those? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess this is more an administrator issue, since they have to identify the articles and put the warnings on them. But I think broader might be generally better, although, I don't know all that entails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Relating to depictions of Muhammad" would, I think, cover any instance where an edit to an article is related to that particular issue or any article on Muhammad himself while not being so broad as to include any issue involving Islam.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we determine reader expectation?
Above, ASCIIn2Bme asks Kirill, how is the English Wikipedia community expected to solve the problem of religiously controversial material according to the WMF mandate?

That's up to us to work out, but I cannot think of a more reliable means of estimating readership expectation than to be guided by what our sources and other encyclopedias do. It's not perfect because constraints wrt availability, copyright, censorship and commercial pressure differ between sources, and between Wikipedia and print, but it's better than relying on the opinion of whatever self-selected group of Randys happen to gravitate to a controversial topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes an odd assumption in that it ignores what we do. I would think the strongest expectation would be internal consistency: that all the articles on similar people would have a similar style.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Expressly. In relation to our use of violent, sexual or religious offensive imagery. Because disputes over such image use naturally attract the kinds of editors who believe such offensiveness should not be considered. Leaving it to "what we do" would be effectively ignoring the resolution. "Follow the sources and other encyclopedias in controversial image use" is an elegant rule of thumb that would be more likely to give the reader the experience they expect from a responsible encyclopedia than leaving it to the ideologies of a cluster of editors attracted to a controversial topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem is that we have editors that are unable to effectively deal with bias in sources. Most sources on Muhammad are authored, edited, or published by Islamic sources. It's no great surprise that they tend to respect Islamic positions on appropriate imagery. Is it really reasonable to examine them as a model for image selection policy? I understand that they may be great sources for facts and timelines, but I really have problems believing they serve as policy models. As for "ignoring the resolution": yes, I understand the WMF "urged" me to do something. I wasn't commanded, ordered, or even implored. I considered their urgings, and believe that following them would corrupt the neutrality of the project.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do sympathise with your position wrt Muslim authors and their handling of images; I assume that, if you take them out of your sample of RSs, the average treatment of images is likely to be different. As I said, "follow the sources" is not perfect. But it beats the present ideological tug-of-war. "Urging" is up there with "imploring" in my book. But it is not (yet) a command. If it's meant to be a command, they'll have to be a lot less coy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not repeat my comments in the workshop, except to again raise synthesis, original research, POV, censorship and suitability objections, to the process proposed in the original comment. But on the more meta issue of the current Resolution, given it's broad in nature, it would also be unwise to suggest because of it, we have to treat Violence, Sex, and Religion, exactly the same. That's not either intellectual, respectful of the subject matter, or in keeping with the mission of the encyclopedia. Different things require different subtleties. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As Kww rightly points out, we don't have to do any of this. ASCIIn2Bme's question assumes we have to or want to. The resolution only urges us to determine realistic educational use and respect reader expectation wrt those classes of image; aside from that, I don't see it saying we should treat them the same. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are simply calling the sources you don't like biased, Kww. NPOV is not arrived at by picking the sources you consider neutral, and discarding the rest, but by looking at the totality of sources, without bias, and doing our best to reflect viewpoints in the best and most authoritative of them proportionately. Can you not at least intellectually support that, and recognise that this is how we are dealing with every other NPOV dispute in Wikipedia? -- J N  466  05:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how attempting the discard sources that you don't like is acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't generally model our editorial policies after sources at all, Jayen466. Your effort to stretch NPOV in that direction is interesting, has some validity, but is certainly not an established practice. When we derive content from sources, we do normally filter for bias and reliability. WP:FRINGE is about determining whether sources "make claims that lack verification in research ... [or] ... that are inherently untestable". WP:REDFLAG includes discussion of sources that have "an apparent conflict of interest". There's nothing at all in our policies that require us to allocate substantial weight to a biased source, and yes, worshipping someone or something creates a bias with regard to that person or thing. There's no escaping that. It's not a case of not "liking" a source, it's a matter of treating it appropriately. I'm not at all saying that we can't use the sources at all: could I use a brochure from Ford Motor Company to detail the Ford Fiesta? Absolutely. Would I use a Ford sales brochure as a model for editorial policy? Absolutely and unequivocally not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's a bias source? In general either something is a WP:RS or it isn't.
 * If you just mean in a simple sense I'm sure we can all agree that a corporate brochure (or the word of an imam) is less reliable than the media, which in turn is less reliable than scholarly sources, but beyond that I don't think we should be interpreting source quality as that is simply bias.
 * With regards to this case going through the sources and seeing what they do is how we establish WP:WEIGHT - and that is clearly established by all the versions of remedy 1 currently presented, all of which highlight WP:NPOV and WP:V as the key policies we need to follow.
 * Ultimately if we are unable to resolve this sensibly we can take it back to the arbitration committee - and blaming Ludwigs for everything isn't really going to fly as an excuse the second time around. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead1, it is troubling that you managed to edit Wikipedia all this time without realizing that many sources do have biases. For example, Muslim sources are very likely to consider Muhammad a prophet of God, while Christian sources would deny that. Bias and reliability are both matters of degree that depend on the statement in question as well the source making it. Your false dichotomies and denial of basic realities add more noise than signal to this conversation. You should read NPOV sometime, especially the part about NPOV. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its blindly obvious that sources have bias, all sources have bias. The fundamental issue is that we shouldn't be excluding specific sources, which would otherwise be considered reliable, because some people don't like the religion of the author.
 * I've been quite heavily involved in moving China, however even though there are large amounts of controversy and difficult discussions the vast majority of participants have managed to avoid classing any particular classes of sources as being bias and therefore needing exclusion. People in the vast majority of cases haven't gone and said that either Taiwanese or Chinese sources should be excluded and that has led us to be able to come to a sensible result.
 * I suppose you'd have a bit more of a point if the dispute was primarily about whether Muhammad is the son of god the last prophet, but it isn't, and I would have thought that anyone writing in a serious source wouldn't be expressing that overtly anyway. That is the only thing that really the point you've linked to at WP:NPOV talks about - it doesn't say that fans of "John Doe" the baseball player cannot contribute to the article on him. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eek! wrong religion! Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch! -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't said that religious sources should be completely excluded. I have said that they aren't a model for editorial policy decisions, and need to be treated carefully for content. Please don't argue with things that haven't been said. That's a big part of what causes these threads to spiral out of control.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you count an scholarly article written by a Muslim on this as a "religious source". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would. Kww's point though is that being a reliable or unreliable source of information about the subject and being a relevant or irrelevant source for determining editorial image choices are independent metrics. Such a scholarly article can be a reliable source of information for the Muhammad article whilst at the same time being irrelevant for determining how we should illustrate Muhammad. This is exactly the same principle that allows us to use the Daily Mail as a reliable source of information without requiring us to take its presentation style into account when choosing how illustrate the article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf correctly represented my position. Yes, Eraserhead1, I would view that source as requiring a careful examination for bias, and no, I would not think that its stylistic choices on image presentation had any relevance to how we should present images. In general, the material from properly vetted academic sources is going to be usable, but that doesn't completely exclude bias.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems to me that what you're actually saying is that mandate "(b)" really has no novel contents, because using reliable sources and balancing them to reach the neutral point of view is something that has been in Wikipedia policies for years. Or are you saying that the mandate is simply nonsense, as we don't have the means to survey the readership and editors voicing an opinion (on their own initiative) about controversial matters are often Randys? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should be doing both. We should be looking at the sources, we should categorise the images in the article, and we should be then discussing with the community at large to come to a sensible conclusion.
 * What we shouldn't be doing is ignoring our sources, or trying to exclude everything that was produced by a muslim. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ASCIIn2Bme, I'm fairly sure (b) "[C]ontent on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain," though it's what we all usually do instinctively, hasn't been expressed as policy yet. I think the idea of using controversial images the way encyclopedias and reliable sources use them is also something we instinctively do, but this practice, too, isn't yet reflected in policy. So, common practice, but I think it's new for these principles to be said out loud.


 * Whether the board's resolution is mandatory or optional is uncertain. My reading of the new terms of use is that some such resolutions are mandatory and others not. Given its language, I think we should assume it's a plea, not a command. We have a duty, though, to ensure we have (a) fully understood the board's intended meaning and (b) carefully considered the costs and benefits associated with implementing or repudiating the resolution.


 * As for your last question, we can't ask the reader what he/she expects, and there is no reason to think a self-selected group of editors attracted to a controversial topic will have any ability to impartially decide reader expectation. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the reader will expect this encyclopedia to handle controversial images the way other encyclopedias and reliable sources do. So, though that may not be a perfect estimator of reader expectation, it's the best that anyone's proposed so far. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the best way of determining reader expectation is to ask. We should have a discussion request box in the article itself, and temper down the warning notices significantly so that discussion isn't discouraged - at this point, after we get the discussions structure setup, we clearly want more participants, not less. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article feedback tool will encourage comments from readers, but I wouldn't trust that as a guide to general reader expectation, it will just indicate what people who feel strongly enough to comment think. A potentially highly skewed sample. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I've suggested will produce a skewed sample as well - but imperfect though it is, it should be better than nothing, especially if we look at the sources too. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While it looks like ArbCom has avoided any specific commitment to this "principle of least astonishment" thing, it is still a very bad thing to try to apply here. My perception of its history is that it was a specific response to Wikimedia Commons, that images should be well categorized, i.e. that a man licking whipped cream off a naked woman wouldn't be filed under "people eating" but under some more specific category about whipped cream fetishism.  Even there it was unfortunate that they ever elevated it beyond ordinary proper categorization.  "Least astonishment" can be proposed by some as a codeword for censorship, and by others as something which does not limit at all; what it will never be is in any way useful. Wnt (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What you've just said is a common interpretation of the meaning, relevance and applicability of the WMF resolution, one of several valid and contradictory interpretations of that ambiguous document. If you read the Harris report and the recommendations of the WMF board working group, upon which the resolution was based, you'll get the background and thinking behind the resolution. No one expects you to have to do that. I, and I think a few others, am hoping we'll be able to get the board to make their intended meaning less ambiguous. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I want to point out that "reader expectation" (or "least astonishment") has been severely misused in previous discussions on Muhammad Images. Wikipedia maintains stats of readership. The overwhelmingly vast majority of editors are neither Muslim or followers of Islam - yet the "billions of Muslims" card gets played repeatedly. en.Wikipedia's readers have an expectation to see a portrayal of the subject of a biography that has not been defaced, and looks like a human being (not like a piece of fancy calligraphy) - that is of course entirely unrelated to the irrelevant "billions of Muslims" statements that people keep trying to throw into the mix. In there, you find the biggest issue when it comes to determining "reader expectations". The second part of that issue is, once we include "billions" of Muslims, or even the tiny number who read/visit this site, contrary expectations (to the one I pointed out above) most definitely are due to religious beliefs. Then comes the balancing act of determining do we want to honor religious beliefs under the guise of "reader expectations" or not? Honoring such destroys many articles on many religions - as historical attempts (that have been ignored) have proven, such as Scientology, CoLDS, various Christian sect and Jewish articles and many more - where such "reader expectations" when in reality were "relgious objections" were ignored in order to protect Wikipedia. I'm not asking people to agree, disagree, support or fight me. This is all simply what is already well documented on Wikipedia as being "what has happened" and not something I intend as a debate (since such has already happened, multiple times). Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert. I asked, "How do we determine reader expectation?" but you have answered "en.Wikipedia's readers have an expectation to see a portrayal of the subject of a biography that has not been defaced, and looks like a human being (not like a piece of fancy calligraphy)." You might be right there but, wrt Muhammad, how many figurative depictions would they expect to find, compared to other images, and how do you determine that? How have you determined, actually, that the readers would expect to find an image of Muhammad? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Anthony, on how many, I'd (as buried on that talk page) again look towards depictions of historical events and such for guidance in creating balance, and other biographies here on Wikipedia of people of similar stature. As for "that the readers would expect to find an image of Muhammad" - that's the easiest of all. "Hey, we have a biography, and we've got images of the person the biography is of. Should we include them?" The answer (when phrased that way) has virtually universally been "yes" on Wikipedia. It gets "no" answers when one inserts "Muhammad" into the question - that's an unjustifiable bias that, to date, no one has been able to explain away. One person went as far as saying (paraphrased) "because it isn't a biography - it's an article on religion. Even though the article on Jesus is a biography and not one on religion". And that particular (NO images) bias, in virtually every single case, returns to "religious offense". Again, not a proper justification for treating this biography entirely differently than all others. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  22:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason is that, while the pictures as currently in the article are all narrative images illustrating incidents, and useful and effective for that purpose, if we wanted one in the infobox we would presumably have to crop a small detail of the figure of Muhammad alone, to make a "portrait", at which point the issues about there being no authentic likeness become far more relevant. Suppose we took a "veiled" image; how helpful would that be as a portrait? The images we have were created as narrative images to illustrate biographies, and they work when used in that way, but not very well as isolated portraits.   At the same time we would be increasing offence to the readers who are offended, most of whom probably never get far enough down the article to see the images as they are. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Robert, you're asserting the reader would expect this encyclopedia to treat images at Muhammad as we treat images at any biography. You may well be wrong. Since readers will know many people are offended by depictions of the prophet; isn't it likely they'd expect us to use such images with more restraint, or not at all? Isn't it probable the average reader would expect an encyclopedia to treat images of Muhammad differently? I'm not asserting that this is true, I'm saying it's not something you can just assert, one way or the other, as you are doing. The remainder of your comment is addressing whether we should treat such images differently, which I won't take up here as I wanted just to address ASCIIn2Bme's question in this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're all talking about the wrong sort of expectation (at least with respect to the intentions of the foundation resolution). The reader is not going to have expectations about the number or substance of the images being presented; if the reader were familiar enough with the literature to have formed such expectations, then the reader would not need to be looking in Wikipedia.  The resolution is talking about the emotional expectations.  It's highly doubtful that readers expect an article to intentionally violate social mores because in real life people or entities that intentionally violate social mores are considered obnoxious, and no one expects a professional encyclopedia to be obnoxious.


 * With respect to the "but all the other biographies are doing it!" argument… that's just silly.  that's a convention (not a necessity, not a rule, not a policy, not a guideline - it's somewhere between a habit and a good idea).  it's a good enough argument to add an image to an article, but not a good enough argument to override all other considerations.  There may be a reason to offend our Muslim readers with some of these images, but if we're offending people out of sheer editorial inertia, that reflects very badly on us.  Are we incapable of understanding context?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnbod, we have plenty that don't need cropping - someplace on "that" talkpage, there's a link to commons where you will find numerous.
 * Hi Anthony, I most definitely dismiss those with expectations based on them wishing others to follow their religious beliefs - that is the only difference in the veiled/unveiled issue. Even though many of the veiled pictures are DEFACED unveiled pictures. That aside, readers searching for Muhammad won't know anything about customs or such, and WILL expect an image that hasn't been defaced. Most people don't research something they know about. Thus, I doubt readers would know others will be "offended" (that, by the way, isn't the correct term - by it's very definition - though I do know what you are trying to say). As for how many? Let's put it this way, the vast majority of this country doesn't realize that Muslims and Christians/Jews worship the same god (as in Yahweh/Allah) - do you really think they'd know that certain sects are not permitted to have representations of Muhammad? Do you think they'd know that some people of the Islamic faith (just like them) don't understand it well enough to know that OTHERS have no such restrictions? Even on that note, here's an issue I have. When various people try to dismiss us using the images, one reason repeated often is that "they are only depictions - they aren't real images/portraits" - but when it comes to "it's forbidden in certain sects of Islam" then suddenly they are treated as the images that are forbidden. And even so, again, it is forbidden for Muslims to possess such. Why in the world should we cater to people who do not understand their own religious (Wikipedia is secular) beliefs? Thus, no, they should not be treated differently, because the only objection for treating them differently is because of, or to honor, religious beliefs. When we start doing that, I will leave this site forever... my beliefs, your beliefs, Islamic beliefs, ANY religious beliefs.
 * Hi Ludwigs, I'm not planning on discussing this with you. You have already made it well known, over a dozen times, that you think religious beliefs trump Wikipedia policy (diffs at AN/I and elsewhere), and I will NOT be caught in a silly argument with you that will detract from what the rest of us are trying to accomplish. Consider this my last message to you regarding ANYTHING related to Muhammad or Islam.
 * Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  07:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No actually we don't have such images on Commons; go and look. All the ones that concentrate on the single figure are either crops someone has made already from a larger scene, or later Western images, just using some generic Oriental figure. For example, I recently spotted that this Western one is actually a copy of this print of one of the three Biblical Magi.  That's not appropriate to use in an infobox without context or explanation, and other Western images will have a similar back-story. Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Robert, I'm aware that you're not going to discuss this with me; you're not going to do so because you know that if you actually tried to discuss this with me you'd be forced to acknowledge the holes in your argument. That's why you make such wild accusations about what I think and believe; you cannot find a way around what I say other than to slander me.


 * However, the fact that you cannot face the flaws in your own reasoning is not really my problem, is it... -- Ludwigs 2  17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Below is in response to JohnBod (as noted by the timestamps), regardless of how the above factoring may make it appear. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I stand corrected on that. I hadn't actually spent the time to compare the images to other ones. Thanks for doing the legwork. So, then, do you think, with including proper context and explanation, that we could make use of such an image? I'd expect we need to do that with any image of Muhammad anyway (just as a few of us did in captioning the existing images there). If so, then perhaps we have a solution for finding an image. Though these didn't appear to be crops (from a quick perusal). Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't cropped but they are later Western images - both 1670s-1710s. The first one is the one that started life as an image of one of the Biblical Magi. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead1' s recent actions
This case was precipitated amongst other things by a number of unilateral actions by Eraserhead1. As I understand it, parties in this case are to be discouraged from participating in future discussions and I completely agree with that policy as a general way forward. There is no implication there that parties have been at fault in discussions or lack expertise, but bringing in new blood is one of the most reasonable ways of dealing with an impasse. Could Eraserhead1 therefore please not speak about "new proposals" before the case has closed? Could he also not tamper with the rubric at the top of Talk:Muhammad/Images before the case has closed? There is no need to make edits like that, when such decisions are out of our hands. Patience, please. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're discussing the depictions at Arbitration it seems entirely dishonest to claim at the top of the images talk page that they can't be discussed. The header change should have been made ages ago. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dishonesty? No you are being unduly impatient by pushing things, as you have done repeatedly. Discussion is moving slowly, which is normal, and there is no need to jump the gun. Please wait until the case is closed before prejudging the outcome and final decision. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not pre-empting the final decision. I'm making a change that should have been made when I started discussing this in November, if not before.
 * Its dishonest to pretend at the top of the images talk page that we aren't allowed to discuss which images to include, when we quite clearly are discussing that, as we have done extensively at Talk:Muhammad/images and this case.
 * The old wording also contravened WP:POLICY by claiming that WP:NODISCLAIMER a guideline, was more important than WP:NPOV and other policies. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the rush? When this case closes, there will be a brand new rubric at the top of the images page giving guidance, referenced to the principles of the case, and explaining discretionary sanctions. Bearing that in mind, please be more patient and wait until the case has closed. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why worry about it if its going to change soon anyway? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your impatient conduct that seems to be the problem. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it impatient, it presumes something that experience has shown isn't true at all. We really don't want widespread input. Extremely large discussions tend to deadlock or devolve into votes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What, just like the current debate already has? The current debate has been stalled for ages, attempting to prevent more people entering the discussion seems really rather strange - it isn't how we usually roll except where a strong consensus has already been established - which clearly isn't the case here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Before even seeing any discussion about it here, I reverted the change. The present wording of the talk page warning is a product of editors at that pages, and if there is a need to change it, that should be subject to review at that page. Not subject to any one editor's personal preference, sorry. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you protest too much...
 * This has nothing to do with personal preference and everything to do with us not deliberately trying to shut down discussion when there is no consenus - which frankly I consider highly inappropriate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Another example of this attempt to disrupt procedure can be found here, where at the 11th hour Eraserhead1 has unilaterally suggested more topic bans. (Eraserhead1 makes particular reference to his own unilateral changes to the rubric.) As far as topic bans go, when the case closes, if there are continuing problems with particular parties, a procedure will have been laid down in the final decision permitting topic bans to be applied through discretionary sanctions at WP:AE. That is the normal way things are done. The precise mechanics and frequency of requests vary from case to case. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, this is an obvious, non-partisan, change that should have been made months ago.
 * If I can't win a non-partisan point about a technicality that should have been changed months ago, then there is no hope for us to be able to resolve the dispute. Claiming that "it'll only be there for a short time" isn't a legitimate argument about anything. If its only going to be there for a short time why worry about it at all? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Win a point"? "Us"? Arbcom are making these decisions, not the parties, and your present editing is just muddying the waters. Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was "obvious" that the change should be/should have been made then there wouldn't have been any opposition to it. There is opposition, therefore it is not a "technicality that should have been changed months ago", meaning the rest of your argument is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why there is any opposition to it quite frankly. And no-one seems to have enumerated any remotely legitimate reason for not letting it fly.
 * With regards to arbcom making decisions, none of the points made in the proposed decision directly addresses the disclaimer, and if it does address the disclaimer there is no legitimate reason for not letting it fly anyway as it will only be for a short time.
 * While other controversial topics have an FAQ none of them have a big red box at the top of the page and have something far more in line with my changed version - and they usually have a settled consensus which isn't the case here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Ec with update.) So, why did you change it substantially? Especially when you objected to me even copy-editing guidelines etc. during this Arbitration? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this isn't a policy that anyone is relying on in discussion. We shouldn't be continuing to sit here and discouraging people from participating in this discussion which is what the current disclaimer box overtly does. I don't really see how its current existence is in line with any of our principles. It is overtly attempting to prevent people from exercising their right to free speech in a discussion which hasn't reached consensus. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Ec with update, again.) Ok, so you claim that something which undoubtedly was the result of some form of prior editorial consensus, now has no consensus as result of this Arbitration... which does not address that particular point (yet, anyway). Great way to make progress in dispute resolution. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does changing a big box at the top of the talk page to bring it into line with the general standards of the project really require an editorial consensus? That said even if I need editorial consensus I'm still waiting for a coherent argument as to why the current box is an improvement. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the most egregious part of your edit was the removal of the link to Talk:Muhammad/images which contains lots of prior discussions. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did remove a link to Talk:Muhammad/images in this large edit. Perhaps there are others. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would Talk:Muhammad/images need to link to itself? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, there's probably no discernible reason for a link in that context. I see you kept the link and changed the wording of the main talk page header removing the sentence "Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article." Is that really constructive until this Arbitration closes and the "binding RfC" takes place? Furthermore, in the same diff you also removed from the main talk page the part which was referring to the "honorifics such as 'peace be upon him'". Insofar WP:PBUH is a guideline. Are you disputing that consensus as a result of this Arbitration as well? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it because there isn't a consensus in favour of the current number of depictions (as we are currently in a no-consensus situation). However you are right that there is a consensus for some depictions to be included, and I should have re-worded that sentence rather than removing it - probably saying "Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed" would have been better.
 * However I don't see why a wholesale rejection was needed to address this point.
 * Meh on the honorifics stuff, maybe that should have just been reverted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have made multiple questionable changes in one edit. You also edit warred. So, don't be surprised that others' patience ran thin. Try making small, focused incremental changes that are more likely to be accepted per WP:BRD. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when is one revert an "edit war"?-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done with the changes you have suggested. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I ask Eraserhead1 (for the second time) to stop ascribing intentions to me in his edit summaries . Where did I "give" the wording (or rather the deletions) he just made? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You gave the ones that weren't in my original edit. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You proposed above the wording with "some" and then ascribe it to me in your edit summary?  That's amazing chutzpah. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice to do this with less drama and with your concrete suggestions for improvement as the first issue, rather than the twentieth. I apologise for doing anything inappropriate. I generally like to credit people for their ideas - and I felt you gave one. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Appealing bans
I don't see any section in the PD about appealing a ban. How long does an editor have to wait before appealing a ban? If an appeal is unsuccessful, is there a minimum amount of time that must pass before the next appeal? Also, are third-parties allowed to appeal bans? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no official time limit unless otherwise stated. In practice though, a ban is rarely reversed before a few months have passed. For a second request to review a ban, it's also not set in stone, but 6 months is a fair minimum. Third parties may not initiate a ban appeal, though they are welcome to comment if the appeal is made on-wiki at WP:A/R/A. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Relative frequency of veiled/unveiled images
Further to our earlier discussions about the relative frequency of veiled/unveiled images, I've had some clarification from Christiane J. Gruber, who is the acknowledged expert in the field. See. -- J N  466  18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So we should go for roughly equal numbers of each kind? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So just what I said before then! Re proportions for us to use, I think the best thing is to represent all main types (as we do) and then not worry too much about it, selecting images on other grounds. As you may remember, I've never been convinced that those who find all images objectionable on religious grounds find veiled ones significantly less so. Thanks for getting this, Jayen, & thanks to Professor Gruber for a very full and to the point reply! Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly think we could go for another flame depiction as the current one is really quite small. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The objectors object to all images (or objects) that may be venerated, be they a flame or Muhammad's tomb. Here are some quotes from Ernst's book:

They also drew upon the relentless puritanical movement of the Wahhabis, who had been active in the Arabian Peninsula since the end of the eighteenth century. The reformers presented themselves as correcting and restoring religion to its original purity. Their preferred name for themselves was the Salafiyya, a term taken from the pious forefathers, that is, the first few generations of Muslims.

[...] Salafi and Wahhabi thinking has evolved into a rigid and authoritarian minority view that regards much of Muslim civilization and history as anathema to their concept of pure Islam. [...] Their insistence on recovering the original uncorrupted purity of the faith and their adherence to scripture to the exclusion of all later additions have an eerie and remarkable similarity to the Protestant Christian ethos. Perhaps for this reason, Americans and Europeans from largely Protestant countries have been tempted to accept at face value the reformist’s claim to represent “true Islam.”

[...] The most prominent intellectual exponents of this extreme iconoclastic trend are undoubtedly the proponents of the Wahhabi ideology that emerged from Arabia in the nineteenth century and which has gained a certain amount of acceptance among other highly conservative groups that do not consider themselves Wahhabis. Current authorities of this school, such as Shaykh al-Baz in Saudi Arabia, have called for a total ban on images of any kind, extending even to the prohibition of photographs in family albums.
 * ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems to go too far, ASCII. Schimmel says, "To be sure, we find representations of the Prophet in quite a number of miniature paintings in the Turkish, Persian, and even Indian traditions. In later times his face is usually veiled, although early fourteenth-century paintings show him unveiled as well, a practice that today is vehemently attacked as heresy by Muslim fundamentalists and even by large parts of the intelligentsia." We mustn't oversimplify either way. -- J N  466  21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In what Jayen says, I mostly agree (agree with everything from "Schimmel says..." onwards, and refrain from commenting/agreeing/disagreeing with anything else - I'd rather not turn this into a "you're right/wrong" debate and will focus on the actual issue and my opinions on it instead). It brings up the crux of this problem. In determining a "fair representation", I think there is a difficult line to find between honoring religious beliefs/censorship and creating a representative balance and having an expected (based on ACTUAL readership statistics - not the "billions of Muslims worldwide" line oft trumped out) non-veiled image(s) of the subject of a biographical article. I won't weigh into that any further than I already have elsewhere - which is to say that I think Reso's, Jayen's and Anthony's efforts were/are at least in good faith to try to find that balance - if such a feat is even possible without it erupting into more protracted debates. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the trouble, Jayen. I'm particularly struck by Christiane's recommendation that we should "an openness of mind and a willingness to look at the data with no other agenda, such as a predisposition to claim that only unveiled images are normative". Perhaps it would be worth a follow-up on the question of whether and what calligraphy can be considered a normative "depiction" of Mohammed (?). --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea - although unfortunately I don't think we can directly rely on it as a justification in the FAQ. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brings us back to reader expectations as well - depending on how you plan on using this. Nowhere, based on our readership stats, would any decent portion of viewers here expect such depictions as "normative" - thus (yes, again), as a representation of the subject of a biography, it is unexpected. As a part of that biography, in a place where such "depictions" (errr... avoidance of depicting) are explained, it makes perfect sense to have calligraphy. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion remedy
I hope somehow, following what Risker seems to be suggesting, that arbitrators can decide between themselves on one remedy that will be put into force concerning future community involvement. Delaying the closure of the case, even by a few days, until such a decision can be reached seems desirable to avoid a missed opportunity. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been a waste of everybody's time. Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My biggest issue with the proposed remedies is that, to be pretty blunt, the article isn't all that good now despite efforts on the part of many editors, and many of the images currently in the article aren't particularly educational, informative or even illustrative. There are a lot of anachronisms, they aren't well discussed in the text, and the only justification that I can see for many of them is "not-censored". But given that those who want these images in the article are numerically superior to those who want to progressively improve it (including potentially removing images), and each of the proposed remedies would essentially lock the article into a particular iteration for an extended period, I can't really support that. Risker (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that anybody expects an arbitrator to give their personal views on content. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No one knows what impact, if any, the Foundation resolution might have on our treatment of controversial images in the near future, or what other changes in practice may occur. Locking in an image choice might shut down discussion, the aim of the status quo faction all along, but I don't see that as an enlightened solution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The community has "a definitive consensus". Trying to narrow that down to an exact list, positions in the article, it sounds like a massive policy traffic jam.  People are going to want to rename, split, reorder sections; new versions and new images will come to Commons; every one of these things probably will end up in accusations and requests to get people banned from the discussion.  Was the status quo before ArbCom got involved worse than that? Wnt (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All WP:NOTCENSORED definitively and unambiguously shows is that we must include at least one depiction of Muhammad somewhere in the article. That is a position that literally everyone who was involved in the dispute agrees with.
 * It doesn't really explicitly require any more than that - Leonardo da Vinci only contains two depictions - no-one claims censorship in that case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ludwigs and "organizing"
I would ask that arbitrators take a look at this. On top of the numerous problems it presents, there is a certain irony (not to mention hypocrisy) in creating a mob dedicating to attacking, among other things, the illusory "mob attacks" that Ludwigs claims he is supposedly encountering. As many of us have noted, he intends to continue to disrupt this project until he gets his way. Resolute 23:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What problem do you see with that page which would prompt the committee to do anything different at this stage? Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to let Ludwigs2 know that his topic-ban extends to his user space. He may not be aware that.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In part, more evidence of his intent to disrupt Wikipedia until he gets his way, in case there are any arbs on the fence when considering topic van vs. site ban. And given virtually everyone he's invited to his private party supported "his side" of the Muhammad debate, I suppose one could also ask whether this could be considered a thinly veiled attempt at rallying support on the Muhammad images issue (certainly amongst other issues), in violation of a potential topic ban. Resolute 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then that's fine, though I think that's something that ArbCom will need to clarify. Worse comes to worst, and if there's interest in doing this, then I'll help someone else organize it.


 * I'm not banned yet, you realize, and what I do on my talk page in the meantime (within reason) is not really anyone's business


 * I'll add that you should wonder why Resolute objects to something like this. One would assume that a good-faith editor would approve of a group of editors dedicated to making talk-page discussions more reasonable and rational.  It's not even like it would be my definition of reasonable and rational that would be pursued; that would be a collective decision of the group.  This would just be a bunch of like-minded editors getting together to make the project a saner place, in an open and collegial manner.  What's wrong with that?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My objections should be fairly obvious. Your proposal immediately reminded me of this: Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English. Resolute 00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. In other words, you are objecting to what you imagine the outcome will be, based on some assumptions you've made about what it is I'm trying to do.  fair enough, if that's what makes you happy.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest calm, deep breathing. Sooner or later, this arbitration will close and Ludwigs2 will be banned. I think most of the people he is trying to organize have enough sense to realize that following Ludwigs2's leadership will simply result in them meeting the same fate. As for topic bans, the only one in effect is related to astrology, and he hasn't violated it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * LMAO: heavens to betsy - "following Ludwigs2's leadership will simply result in them meeting the same fate". Wow.  Just…  Wow.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "high-powered tactics" is supposed to mean (Pola! Pola! Pola!?), but I don't see immediately actionable material on that page otherwise. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "High-powered" doesn't mean anything particular, just that it would be drawing on more of my professional expertise than I have been to date. It's just a turn of phrase. -- Ludwigs 2 00:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you lot knock it off, please? AGK  [•] 00:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem Ludwigs2 is experiencing on the multiple topic areas in which he is being unfairly treated is painfully obvious.Fladrif (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AGK: Delete this whole thread if you like (it's not something I'd meant to bring up here anyway). -- Ludwigs 2  00:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, MfD is the appropriate venue for this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)