Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathsci (talk | contribs) at 08:20, 30 December 2011 (→Evidence presented by {your user name}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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: 476; diff count: 35.

Article history

The number of figurative images of Muhammad in Muhammad rose sharply after the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. On the day the cartoons were published, there was one Islamic image of the more common (veiled) type in the article. As the controversy played out, the number of images increased, as did the number of editors who only edited the article to remove or add/restore images. By November 2011, there were 6 images of Muhammad (4 unveiled: 3 of the rarer, unveiled Islamic type, 1 Western), while images like those of the Kaaba, included in the GA version (4 figurative images, 2 unveiled), had disappeared.

Resolute's proposal

• 18/11/2011: Following discussions on Jimbo's talk (), User:Resolute made a compromise proposal that attracted majority support on Talk:Muhammad/images. .
• Resolute's proposal envisaged 4 images (2 unveiled), as in the GA version:
  • one "flame" image in the bio section,
  • two of the relatively common mi'raj-type images (one veiled, one unveiled) in the Depictions section
  • one Western image (with the option of adding another).
• 24/11/2011: First attempt to implement reverted by User:FormerIP, who up to that point had never contributed to either the article or its talk pages.
• 1/12/2011: Implementation reverted again by User:FormerIP

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. (Cf. )

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.

@Coren

.

Ludwigs2 and Tarc

Personalised disputes in multiple venues: ; ; ; etc.

Kww

"Muslim scholars are not reliable sources":

Tivanir2

Evidence presented by ASCIIn2Bme

Current word length: 241; diff count: 14.

The WMF-sponsored report recommends against hiding controversial "sacred" images by default

But the WMF board explicitly decided to ignore that recommendation

Jimbo Wales has decided that the Persian images are "very fringe"

Game over:

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 comments (AE). Concomitant complaints for his tone at Pregnancy: .

On Muhammad's depictions:

• "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"
• "keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche"
• "what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense"
• "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."
• "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." ... "You're an intellectual coward, Tarc"
• "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."

Although Ludwig2's behavior mirrored previous transgressions, the ANI discussion failed to reach a consensus, in part because editors who agree with Ludwig2's stance on content opposed topic-banning him. (read, please)

JN466 says (above) that his arguments are not based on offense, but he tried to CANVASS offended editors to these proceedings

permalink.

Evidence presented by Eraserhead1

Current word length: 519; diff count: 33.

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. Its worth noting that while the number of images was higher in March 2010, the added image was one of Muhammad in hell which was added by a now indefinitely blocked user .

Comparison with featured historical biographies

Muhammad is on the low side but it isn't outside the seemingly normal range of 30-60% or so.

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 in favour of the status quo.

• Former IP
  • ,
• Tarc
  • • Lesser issues on the same lines:
• Resolute
  • Lesser, but along the same lines

WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour

General battleground behavour.

• Tarc
• Ludwigs
  • Lesser
• Johnbod
• FormerIP
  • discussion leading up to this point between FormerIP and Jayen466

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.

• Tarc

Refusal to explain how we are following NPOV

NPOV is a WP:PILLAR and is a non-negotiable policy. Therefore to discuss this in good faith it is legitimate to explain how your argument meets our neutrality policies.

• FormerIP
  • this point by Ludwigs and previous debate Further poor understanding of the policy:

Reply to Coren

While I think offensiveness should be taken into account I have thought the best way to do that is to refer to sources for a while. Certainly since the start of my involvement at WT:NOT (see )

Evidence presented by Coren

Current word length: 108; diff count: 0.

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)

@Jayen466

The question is, then, whether the argument is exceptional in the case of this article. If the ratio of text to images, say, in Albert Einstein (I haven't actually checked the counts, I simply picked another article about a person I knew was well-illustrated) is comparable, why should that article be handled differently if not because of religious consideration? — Coren  01:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Resolute

Current word length: 326; diff count: 11.

Ludwigs2 and tendentious editing

I believe most involved editors are reasonable, albeit exhibiting different levels of flexibility in how we present the article. Ludwigs, however, seems intent on making this into a war of attrition. His behaviour can only be classified as an attempt at wearing down his opposition, and he does so by repeating the same arguments ad nauseum, regardless of how many times he fails to gain support for his position. These diffs are only a small number of each argument:

• "The images aren't real": Oct 21, Nov 10, Dec 3, Dec 9
• "They are trivial":Oct 30, Nov4, basis of his RFC, Dec 13

Ludwigs has made it clear that he will continue to push this until he gets his way. He even admits that a ban is likely in his future:

• "But don't worry; knowing that I'm eventually going to get kicked off the project (and knowing why that's going to happen, if not when) is freeing."
• Re: his own behaviour: "B.C., be realistic. I am toast sooner or later, regardless."

Ludwigs is engaging in this argument with the expectation of being martyred, and consequently has been a constant obstruction to the process. His battleground mentality was already covered by ASCIIn2Bme, and his habit of forcing the discussion in circles has simply wasted dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of time. Even one of his biggest supporters recognizes that Ludwigs' actions are disruptive: . Said editor came to agree that a topic ban is necessary: .

While other parties will show evidence against other editors, some of whom likely could/should be admonished for it, I believe that topic banning Ludwigs from discussions on these images will be enough to allow the community to come to a consensus. Certainly we had much better and more productive discussions at Talk:Muhammad/Images while Ludwigs was on his self-imposed hiatus from that page, but his return obliterated every effort at creating a framework to resolve the issue I attempted to broker. Resolute 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ludwigs2

Current word length: 1; diff count: 0.

Evidence presented by Tarc

Current word length: 442; diff count: 19.

Ludwigs2

Shifting arguments.

• Foundation resolution
• link
• link
• Religious concerns
• link
• link
• link
• Not really images of Muhammad
• link
• link

Accuses others of bigotry/prejudice/intolerance

• "What your argument really amounts to is not a defense of NPOV, but rather the imposition of your own Western, liberal, secular, intellectual viewpoint on the rest of the world. It's internet colonialism (if you'll pardon me coining a phrase), except that the savages you're trying to civilize aren't really savages but just anyone who happens to disagree with what you think is normal and acceptable. Is that what you think Misplaced Pages is meant for?" - link
• "the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice. Say what you will, but it's obvious these images are being used to POV-push against the Muslim religion, and that that wholly-unacceptable-under-policy practice is being shielded by using NOTCENSORED to shut down any reasoned discussion." - link
• "...the minute someone stands up and argues to retain the offensive image, the offense becomes' an insult, because at that point it is intentional. We can excuse Rick Perry for inheriting a farm with a racist name; that's not his fault. but if he defends the name then he becomes a racist. See how that works? Same principle here." - link
• "Guys, you do realize that this is exactly the kind of reasoning used in entrenched racism, son't you? I mean, this is like that age-old Deep South Jim Crow thing where they used to say (pardon me for this offensive example): "'N*@@er' is just what we call those people, we don't mean any insult by it, and it's not our concern if a few uppity n*@@ers don't like it." You are trying to render your opponents as unworthy of being listened to - you may even truly believe they are unworthy of being listened to - but that is your problem, not theirs." - link
• "Again, Tivanir2, you miss the point: these images do not help to make "the best article available," they simply antagonize people needlessly. You are making the absurdly hyperbolic claim that being reasonable on this article will cause commotion on hundreds of other articles. Being reasonable doesn't cause commotion; it resolves it." - link

Disregards arguments/editors he doesn't like

This goes to the heart of WP:BATTLE and WP:CONSENSUS; numerous statements that boil down to "if I judge your argument to be inferior, then I can ignore it". The practical implementation of this is that Ludwigs will ignore the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community if he judges that consensus to be based on (in his opinion) a flawed or faulty rationale.

• link
• link
• link
• link
• link (this was from the Arbcom case statement)
• link

Continuing during Arbcom discussions

• link

Evidence presented by Noformation

Current word length: 308; diff count: 5.

Disruptive editing by Hans Adler

I would like to present evidence that User:Hans Adler engaged in disruptive editing as well, by attempting to poison the well, by speculating on the motives of others, and assuming that anyone who disagreed with him had racist motives. I was involved in the images debate in early November, and I ended up pulling myself out of it, partly because I was unwilling to deal with the aforementioned accusations that took place on AN/I.

#1 Hans begins with the minor attack on me by claiming that my behavior was "not the worst." My response was that I had always done my very best to be civil and if I had breached that then he should provide diffs - no diffs would come of course, because incivility is really not my style. I then restated my position on the topic at hand and Hans responded with the false dichotomy that I was either unable to comprehend policy or I must purposely be trying to insult Islam. My response was again to request that he provide diffs of my behavior since he skipped over that part and I once again attempted to provide an argument for my position rather than let who I am or who Hans is have anything to do with what is supposed to be a discussion. Finally I simply stated that he should either redact his attack on me or provide diffs and he never responded.

Later in the same thread, Hans goes on to state that the only explanation for the editors disagreeing with him is that they must have a disease in the autism spectrum disorder.

I'm sure there is more in that AN/I report but I think this gives an idea of the way that Hans thinks and acts and how it is not conducive to academic discourse, nor to building this encyclopedia.

Evidence presented by RobertMfromLI

Current word length: 466; diff count: 0.

Sorry I am late to the party. Most of the evidence and such has been presented above - and the guilty parties have been pointed out as well. I wish to comment on another matter, which I am too late to comment on over at the Arbitration Case page. Inotherwords, here's the comments I would have put on the Arb page before it was opened, had I the chance.

Compromise, nonsense, ongoing war of attrition

In following the Muhammad page for a long time, I see an ongoing pattern that is pushing me to the point of leaving Misplaced Pages entirely. The article in question is already the subject of NUMEROUS compromises to honor religious beliefs. Every few months, a few editors come back, make a stink about the images, and hammer out yet another compromise (slowly winning the war to censor the article). This is getting tiring - and going against the intent of Misplaced Pages to be secular on such matters. This entire thing is a part of that ongoing battle (no, not Reso's, Anthony's and Jayen's work - which I support and mostly agree with). And IT NEEDS TO STOP

• The page has disclaimers (TONS of them)
• The page has FAQs
• The page has a sub-page for image complaints
• The page, though it is a BIOGRAPHY and NOT an article on religion is not being treated as such - as one for instance, instead of having an image of the BIOGRAPHY'S subject, we have a piece of calligraphy which was created to NOT represent the subject - thus having the exact opposite effect.
• The page no longer has any depictions of Muhammad in the first 3rd+
• Religious views keep getting trumped out to remove images that dont follow a certain sect of Islam (which end up being non-veiled images)

Should I go on? Screw the compromises - to put it bluntly. And here's why - for those who have forgotten: THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. This is NOT a religious site. The article is NOT a religious article. This site is SUPPOSEDLY against religious or political biases motivating content inclusion or removal.

Next, what's trumped out most recently is "let's do what Brittanica (or others) does" - screw that too. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be BETTER than such, with LESS constraints and LESS biases (due to paid readership, sponsors or whatever).

ALL of it boils back down to religious offense. I've patiently waited some semblance of reason that simply creates a policy that allows editors to summarily ignore any such content arguments that go back to religious or political beliefs - but instead, we are sliding the wrong direction - and, I'm feeling less inclined on coming back here. I don't care what the political party or religion - we need to stop catering to ALL of them.

ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 01:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tivanir2

Current word length: 307; diff count: 3.

• I have collapsed your evidence because you have not included any diffs. You must substantiate all evidence with diffs to the comments you have quoted, so that we can authenticate your submission. If you do not add diffs to your evidence, it may be removed entirely. Thank you, AGK 01:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies I wasn't aware diffs were required so I opted for direct quotes. Diffs inclue ], ], ]. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kww

Current word length: 137; diff count: 8.

Hans Adler has attacked editors with opposing views

I don't take kindly to being portrayed as unethical and autistic, nor do I think that portraying the motivation of his opposition as being to "defend their vested right to humiliate Muslims" falls within the range of collegial editing.—Kww(talk) 18:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's editing history has been largely confined to attempting to misapply WP:NPOV in order to provide undue weight to religion, superstition and fantasy

• His edits on Talk:Buddhism from 2008 set the tone: enormous walls of text, superficially reasonable, but apparently dedicated to the proposition that Buddhism is not a religion.
• At Jesus Myth theory, he proceeds to emphasise quotes from Christians affirming the existence of Christ.
• His first comment at Talk:QuackWatch includes defense of quack medicines, a trend which will continue
• His attempt to elevate quack medicinal processes continues
• Not even patent nonsense such as remote viewing escapes his support.
• By the time we get to Intelligent Design, we get to full-blown Ludwigs2: fighting, complete with references to IDHT].

Evidence presented by NuclearWarfare

Current word length: 77; diff count: 1.

This case unfortunately has had a bit of misbehavior already—there was inter-party sniping and arguing going on at the workshop page that AGK had to shut down. I have made this section to document any additional action that I have had to take in my capacity as case clerk. NW (Talk) 22:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I removed a comment made by Ludwigs2, which I felt was inappropriate in tone and content for the workshop page. NW (Talk) 22:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Johnbod

Current word length: 436; diff count: 0.

Article as it now stands meets all policy requirements

The article has from the beginning (2005) shown an abnormal treatment of images of the subject of this biography. Despite an abundance of images of Muhammad being available, only a few have ever been used, and these have been placed increasing lower down the page. The number of relevant calligraphic images has been greatly increased. I now hit the first one on the 5th screen down. If there were no religious concerns we would certainly have more, and they would be differently placed. We always use more images than "other sources" who have to pay for picture rights; nor do "other sources" share our policies of NPOV and against censorship. In Misplaced Pages, the obvious comparator, Jesus, has 46 images, 37 including a depiction of Jesus and 9 not. Muhammad has 25 images, 6 depictions of him, 10 calligraphy (already too many in my view) and 9 other - and also long sections with no illustration at all. Buddha, which is a good deal shorter than either, has 14 images, 12 including him and 2 that don't. So percentages of total images showing the subject are: Muhammad 15%; Jesus 81%; Buddha 86%. Comparisons to Jesus and Buddha are also relevant to the "not historical portraits" and "not typical" arguments advanced above by Ludwigs2, Jayen and Elonka, and others in the original talk page discussions. The conventional images of Jesus and Buddha are also not based on any historically authentic depiction, though there are verbal ones for Buddha and Muhammad but not Jesus. The plethora of images of Jesus we show are nearly all drawn from the narrow period of Renaissance/Baroque Roman Catholicism, and are far from representative of the broad history of Christianity across time and place, and in particular obviously do not reflect the objection many Protestant churches still have to such images, and all of them once had. Probably some Protestants are still offended by such imagery, though not in such violent terms as their 16th century forbears, but realize it would be pointless to object. Objectors also ignore that all the images used are not "portrait" images, but illustrate important narrative incidents from the life; Eraserhead's highly selective tables take no account of this.

Despite this, there is no recognition by many editors that a compromise is already in place, and they continue to demand more. There is no reason to believe this will end unless all images are removed. The article already breaches the principle of least astonishment by having so few images and in view of WMF board recent pronouncement should go no further in this direction. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mathsci

Ludwigs2 has consistently responded to those disgreeing with him with borderline personal attacks and belittling comments

As explained on the workshop page, in response to a general question from Elonka on Ludwigs2's conduct,

• I looked at the contributions of Ludwigs2 to Talk:Muhammad/Images,
• made a collection of diffs with quotes and a few annotated summaries on a userspace subpage
• linked it to the workshop page
• explained that it could be added to the evidence if AGK saw fit.

Although AGK has not yet responded, in the meantime Ludwigs2 left a note on NuclearWarfare's talk page which has prompted me temporarily to add a wikilink to the subpage below as a stop gap. As time permits, I will prepare a shortened version before Jaunary 11, possibly looking at other pages. If the subpage is deemed adequate, I can leave the evidence in that form.

• User:Mathsci/ArbCom2011

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.