This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayen466 (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 21 December 2011 (→Reply to Coren: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:34, 21 December 2011 by Jayen466 (talk | contribs) (→Reply to Coren: ce)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Jayen466
Current word length: 139; diff count: 10.
Misrepresentations of NPOV policy
- – WP:NPOV cannot be divorced from what sources do, as the neutral point of view is defined as reflecting sources' viewpoints in due proportion.
- – WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE, applies to images as well as text, and has done for many years.
- – WP:NPOV takes into account the entire pool of reliable sources (in our case, with a particular focus on English-language sources). There is no a-priori exclusion of Islam's philosophical position: per policy, we reflect it to the extent it is reflected in reliable sources.
- – The first argument in the first diff is valid. However, excluding from consideration highly reputable sources with whose editorial stance we don't agree – as suggested in the second argument in that diff – circumvents and subverts the aim of reflecting viewpoints in proportion to their published prominence. (See also and prior discussions.)
Talk page disruption
Reply to Coren
My and others' argument is not based on offensiveness. Offensiveness is indeed irrelevant. The editorial standards of sources however are highly relevant. It is their judgment that we should follow. In this case, it is my impression that we show more images of Muhammad, and specifically more unveiled images of him, than is warranted by their general prevalence in English-language sources on Muhammad. From an NPOV perspective, I have no problem with showing some such images in Muhammad, or with showing a bunch of them in Depictions of Muhammad.
The same policy criteria apply in any other article where images might be offensive to some readers. We should simply follow sources, to the best of our ability. We should not knowingly set out to depart from them, under the hubristic assumption that we know better.
Evidence presented by ASCIIn2Bme
Current word length: 447; diff count: 11.
In a facsimile of his behavior in other topic areas, Ludwigs2 has been uncivil and inflammatory
In May 2011, ArbCom "cautioned to discuss matters more circumspectly and to avoid drama-creating rhetoric" . In October 2011 Ludwigs2 was topic banned from Astrology for poisoning-the-well type comments, the most egregious of which was probably comparing those who disagree with him with the KKK. You can find diffs in the WP:AE discussion. About the same time Ludwigs2 received numerous complaints for his tone in the discussions related to pregnancy .
On the Muhammad issue Ludwigs2 has continued the same pattern:
- "the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice"
- "that's almost worthy of a clinical diagnosis"
- "You are not using ethical reasoning - that is a demonstrable fact"
- "They are cheap lies. maybe you believe them (in which case they are cheap lies you are telling yourself, rather than cheap lies you're telling to others), but from my perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche, and deal with what I am saying to you as I say it (not filtered through the twists and turns of your own perspective)"
- "Kww - you really have no idea what I'm trying to do, and what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear..."
- "except, Robert, no other policies matter to you"
- "Resolute: the only thing 'personal' about this debate is that people (like you) keep talking crap about me, which is not something I can do anything about."
- "Look at what happened to me: I'm an intelligent, reasonable individual, with a decent policy argument to make, and all I got for my efforts was endless endless amounts of circular reasoning and a bunch of editors hounding me through ANI like a dog. Anyone without my (formidable) intellectual resources could not have endured the page at all, so a claim that 'reasoned arguments' might be successful is pure fantasy."
- "I find it deeply disturbing that anti-religious sentiment is this intense on project. You collectively seem incapable of distinguishing between religion and religious extremism, and attack both indiscriminately."
- "I really get sick of the way you fuck around with reason."
- "Neo-nazis and living serial killers have more protection on project than established religions, at least according to your logic. it's patently absurd and deeply prejudiced."
Etc. As too often happens on Misplaced Pages, although Ludwig2's behavior was little different in the Muhammad images case, the ANI discussion failed to reach a consensus, in no small part because editors who agree with Ludwig2's stance on the images have opposed his removal from the discussion. There are some essays about disruptive editors' enablers, but I'll let you find them on your own. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Eraserhead1
Current word length: 255; diff count: 23.
No compromise has been made so far on the number of images
The number of pictures and unveiled pictures has increased by approximately 25% compared to the number of words since December 2006 - although since March 2010 the number has come down.
| Date | Number of Muhammad pictures | Number of unveiled Muhammad pictures | Number of words (DYK check) | Muhammad pictures per thousand words | Unveiled Muhammad pictures per thousand words |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 June 2005 | 0 | 0 | 3270 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 December 2006 | 3 | 2 | 6232 | 0.48 | 0.32 |
| 5 July 2008 (GA version) | 4 | 2 | 8339 | 0.48 | 0.24 |
| 1 August 2009 | 6 | 3 | 8753 | 0.69 | 0.34 |
| 26 March 2010 | 7 | 5 | 9213 | 0.76 | 0.54 |
| 31 December 2010 | 7 | 4 | 9066 | 0.77 | 0.44 |
| 11 December 2011 | 6 | 4 | 9932 | 0.60 | 0.40 |
Refusal to accept there isn't a strong consensus in favour of the status quo
Given the approximately half million words of discussion it should be fairly obvious there isn't a strong consensus over this matter.
WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour
General battleground behavour.
- Tarc
- Ludwigs
- Johnbod
- FormerIP
Refusal to accept that arguments in favour of reducing the number of images apply to multiple articles
Of course there's lies, damn lies and statistics, but even if you don't agree with the arguments thrust it seems like I didn't hear that to continually claim that the standard being asked for only applies to Muhammad.
Evidence presented by Coren
Offensiveness should not be a factor in deciding whether or which images to use
The substantive matter revolves around whether some images may be "offensive" and should be excluded on that ground. This is exactly what WP:CENSORED is meant to prevent, despite repeated claims that it is being misused when used for its primary function.
Besides: . — Coren 22:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.