Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Eraserhead1 (talk | contribs) |
→Statement by Anthonyhcole: comments |
||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Jayen has come up with a neat formulation that would have obviated ''all'' the lost time at [[Muhammad]], [[Pregnancy]] and soon-to-erupt-again [[Suicide]]. I don't want sanctions or diktats. You're arbitrators because you're deemed to have a clue. I don't, wrt how to proceed. Can you see a way forward here? |
Jayen has come up with a neat formulation that would have obviated ''all'' the lost time at [[Muhammad]], [[Pregnancy]] and soon-to-erupt-again [[Suicide]]. I don't want sanctions or diktats. You're arbitrators because you're deemed to have a clue. I don't, wrt how to proceed. Can you see a way forward here? |
||
===Comment by Collect === |
|||
# In the case at hand - use of images is clearly a content dispute and not really amenable to ArbCom. |
|||
# Wikipedia has a great many users from a great many backgrounds, political, religious and social beliefs; it is impossible for any encyclopedia to not offend anyone at all. Nor do any Wikipedia policies or guidelines remotely attempt to prevent such. [[WP:ASTONISH]] does not mean that no one will ever take offense at an article, nor should article editors assume that they have an obligation not to offend anyone. (Were it within ArbCom's purview, I would suggest that this page be rewritten to make this clear - it appears to be misused all too often for reasons not anticipated by those who originally wrote it), |
|||
# Again, while it is not in ArbCom's direct traditional purview, ArbCom ought to suggest that an independent group of editors be selected or named with a specific and limited authority to determine where [[WP:ASTONISH]] is actually being violated, and, following such determination, be vested with authority to maintain their decision, and to ensure that [[WP:ASTONISH]], or any other policies or guidelines named in that committee's purview, is not used as a "dead horse" arguemnt thereafter in any area or article. |
|||
# By extention, elected and neutral select committees might profitably examine the use of "infinitely long duration tags" on articles, and the apparent use of articles as "advocacy articles" in general on Wikipedia. A sub-committee of ArbCom might be actually able to examine such in detail without breaching the "no content dispute" rule. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
=== Clerk notes === |
||
Revision as of 12:59, 11 December 2011
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Images | 11 December 2011 | {{{votes}}} |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Muhammad Images
Initiated by -- Eraserhead1 <talk> at 09:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Hans Adler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- FormerIP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Resolute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- A huge amount of discussion - including 23 archives - and probably amounting to half a million words
- Attempt at mediation 1
- Attempt at mediation 2
- Closure of compromise request
- ANI request on Ludwigs2
Statement by Eraserhead1
It is with reluctance that I bring this case here. I originally made some comments on the Muhammad Images page back in April to June 2010 to try and get some level of compromise - this was challenged by the editors on the page and I backed off. In November after finding out about the RFC on NOTCENSORED I realised that the issue at Muhammad was still being discussed and unresolved. Additionally no compromise has been implemented in the past 2.5 years - there is no difference to the number of controversial unveiled and figurative images since 1st August 2009 and today. It also appears that this topic has been discussed on its own talk page since early 2007 - so it looks to have been an issue since then.
In mid-November Resolute made a compromise proposal which seemed good to me and looked to break the logjam. Unfortunately the discussion was filibustered by a number of editors who refused to engage with the process of compromise (1, 2). This even involved significant pieces of misdirection (1, 2, 3) and poor faith editing (1, 2, 3, last part of 4).
- Response to statement by Mathsci
Actually I opened the thread at WP:AN and it failed and seems to have become an attempt to topic ban just one of the users who has actually signed up to the compromise proposal - which is totally unfair. And you haven't really got the users who have refused to compromise since I started editing the page any closer to actually being prepared to go along with the compromise.
Additionally if you think an earlier stage of dispute resolution could be attempted to resolve the conduct issues at Talk:Muhammad/images then go and do it. I honestly don't see any other option but to file this.
In reply to your second comment, I don't believe this is a content issue. The content issues can easily be resolved by the community productively once the disruptive editors are prevented from continuing to be disruptive. Obviously only a relatively small number of the parties of this request have had conduct issues - but who those editors are can be covered by the evidence presented to the committee, but I wanted to include everyone who was recently involved in the discussion.
Additionally there may well be value in having the solution locked down by the committee once we have agreed a way forward - as was done in the abortion arbitration case (and the less recent Ireland arbitration case). Some people will come in after the community comes to an agreement and complain about any solution - which is likely to lead to large quantities for further discussion which we can hopefully avoid.
- Response to statement by Anthonyhcole
If we can resolve the conduct issues surrounding the difficult cases it should be possible for the community to resolve the easy cases as well with some policy changes. Additionally if we can solve the conduct issues with this difficult case it will be surely be easier to solve other difficult cases (possibly such as suicide) with lower levels of dispute resolution without having to reach the stage of this committee.
Statement by Mathsci
This seems to be a meritless request by Eraserhead1. I have barely been involved in these discussions, except to unearth images (and associated text) from various museums and academic sources. The issue over the use of images seems to be in the process of being resolved on the article talk page, although that will require some waiting accompanied by considerable patience. There have been some very minor conduct problems, but at present I do not feel these rise to the level of being examined by WP:ANI, let alone ArbCom (I refer specifically to Tarc and Ludwigs2). A compromise decision on how images might be used in this particular article was proposed by Resolute and that seems gradually to be gathering general agreement. There has been a superficial level of bickering on the page, but, looking beyond that, parties who appeared to disagree a month or two ago now seem to be in agreement (amazingly!). Resolute has suggested that things could become more normal if the two users I mentioned stayed out of discussions, but at the moment I have no view on that (Resolute opened a thread on WP:AN). Since at this stage things seem to have quietened down, I cannot see any way ArbCom can really help here. Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- @ Eraserhead1: this is primarily a content dispute. I'm willing to comment from a distance on a talk subpage of this single article, but have no wish to become involved in interminable arguments. I see progress happening through the usual channels. Perhaps some users are arguing at cross purposes, but I cannot see any way that ArbCom can speed up the rate at which these decisions are made. Nor I do see any really major conduct issues. I am commenting there while editing elsewhere. I am trying to help form a consensus, based on previous editing experience. I think all but three or four of those listed agree in principle with some version of Resolute's proposal. Nobody listed wishes to remove all images. Perhaps there are some who believe that images can be added without due regard for context or secondary sources, but I hope they can be persuaded otherwise. That is, however, a content issue, so outside the remit of ArbCom. Personally having that page on article probation with an uninvolved administrator overlooking discussions might be a way of solving minor conduct problems. I should add that, although I might suggest sources, images or even possible specific content, I have no intention of editing the article. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Anthonyhcole
The existing mechanisms for deciding what is appropriate use of images of Muhammad at Muhammad aren't working. Although there are relatively minor but very irritating behaviour problems from all points of view, the underlying issue is, in my opinion, a procedural one. Can you suggest a way forward?
No one engaged in the present dispute, that has been raging for forty days and forty nights, has a problem with images of Muhammad illustrating Depictions of Muhammad, or relevant sections of Muhammad, such as Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad or Muhammad#Non-western views. I think two main objections have been raised about the way these controversial images are being used in other sections of Muhammad:
- Follow the sources. Jayen466 (Jayen) and others are asserting that (i) because our sources on Muhammad rarely use figurative depictions, even to illustrate biographical events, we would be breaching WP:NPOV to use many such images, and (ii) because such images are vanishingly rare in Islamic tradition, to use many of them in our article may mislead the reader on that point.
- Avoid creating gratuitous offense. Ludwigs and others, including me, object to what we see as the frivolous use of images known to be offensive to many of our readers in sections where they add nothing relevant to the readers' understanding, such as the image decorating Muhammad#Childhood and early life, that was painted 700 years after the death of the prophet, in another culture, and that tells the reader nothing whatever about the event depicted.
The first position (that we should use controversial images the way our sources do) is a novel and elegant rule of thumb which I would like to see the community adopt for all controversial image use, because it takes the assessment of good taste and respect for the readership out of the hands of whatever editors happen to cluster around a given article at a given time, would do no harm, would save masses of time and would stop us looking like a bunch of offensive dolts.
Jayen's proposal, to be guided by our sources' handling of controversial images, is foundering on its novelty: to the best of my knowledge, though sensible editors have been doing that instinctively all along, it's never been said in so many words. Defense of using controversial images frivolously mainly falls under "we don't take any notice of whether we offend our readers. WP:NOTCENSORED
Jayen has come up with a neat formulation that would have obviated all the lost time at Muhammad, Pregnancy and soon-to-erupt-again Suicide. I don't want sanctions or diktats. You're arbitrators because you're deemed to have a clue. I don't, wrt how to proceed. Can you see a way forward here?
Comment by Collect
- In the case at hand - use of images is clearly a content dispute and not really amenable to ArbCom.
- Wikipedia has a great many users from a great many backgrounds, political, religious and social beliefs; it is impossible for any encyclopedia to not offend anyone at all. Nor do any Wikipedia policies or guidelines remotely attempt to prevent such. WP:ASTONISH does not mean that no one will ever take offense at an article, nor should article editors assume that they have an obligation not to offend anyone. (Were it within ArbCom's purview, I would suggest that this page be rewritten to make this clear - it appears to be misused all too often for reasons not anticipated by those who originally wrote it),
- Again, while it is not in ArbCom's direct traditional purview, ArbCom ought to suggest that an independent group of editors be selected or named with a specific and limited authority to determine where WP:ASTONISH is actually being violated, and, following such determination, be vested with authority to maintain their decision, and to ensure that WP:ASTONISH, or any other policies or guidelines named in that committee's purview, is not used as a "dead horse" arguemnt thereafter in any area or article.
- By extention, elected and neutral select committees might profitably examine the use of "infinitely long duration tags" on articles, and the apparent use of articles as "advocacy articles" in general on Wikipedia. A sub-committee of ArbCom might be actually able to examine such in detail without breaching the "no content dispute" rule. Collect (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).