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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment

FYI

Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment#To accept as a Wikipedia guideline or not

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 [1], 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^oformation ^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)

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 [2] 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. --JN466 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^oformation ^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 —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:

• 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.

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.

It would put my mind to rest if someone could explain in clear terms

1. what precisely is objectionable in these particular diffs, or
2. what behavior in general is being objected to

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. --Ludwigs2 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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^oformation ^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. --Ludwigs2 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 <talk> 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)

• • 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? --Ludwigs2 07:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole seems to have retired and un-retired rather quickly... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:17, 22 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.[3] 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)

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)

Minor copyediting

Resolved

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?

• 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"

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)

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

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)

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)

(edit conflict) 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^oformation ^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)

Proposed Principals 4.2 - Wikipedia is Not Censored

I agree with Jclemens. Belief systems shouldn't be singled out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I see this is fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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#Critique_of_each_image, 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:

1) The dispute relates to the use of images at the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 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 <talk> 20:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • • Really, why? AGK invited discussion, said he had noted the comments, and trhen 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)

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'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… --Ludwigs2 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)