Misplaced Pages

• About arbitrationTalk
• Arbitration policy (CU/OS)
• Guide to arbitration
• Noticeboard + Talk
• Search archived proceedings
• Ban appealsReport

• All open requests
• Case requests
• Clarification and Amendment requests
• Arbitrator motion requests
• Enforcement requests

• Contentious topics (Log)
• General sanctions
• Editor sanctions

• Discuss+
• Contact
• Members
• Procedures
• ElectionsTalk
• History
• Clerks+ Talk
• Clerk procedures
• Conflict of interest reports

• Talk
• StatisticsTalk
• Reports (pre-2016)

• v
• t
• e

This unfortunate situation has arisen because the evidence upon which the workshop proposals are based has been removed. However, it can still be viewed. The preliminary statement is at . The evidence statement is at . Per Liz, the requested supplementary information follows.

Point 1

This is covered in the preliminary statement ("PS") in the portion beginning "He misrepresents other editors" and ending "15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)".

Point 2

This is covered in the evidence statement ("ES") in the portion beginning "he makes the dangerous assertion" and ending "(14:07, 2 April)."

Point 3

This is covered in the ES in the portion beginning "He says (14:21, 30 March)" and ending "Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It is further covered in the following exchange:

Dispute the close at ANI (there may be a more apt venue but if there is I'm not aware of it) if you think the closer acted wrongly but until it's overturned the RFC close represents the consensus of wikipedia and your arguments are not overturning it with those engaging here.

You make a lot of noise about following the guidelines, and how you're the white knight around here who reverts everyone else who doesn't (in your opinion). Consider this - do we need an RfC every time an editor adds a sourced fact to an article? Of course not. The sourced facts added were:

• Hillenbrand says the depiction of Muhammad preaching in a mosque is a fiction for which his suggested explanation is that it is designed to make a theological point.

• T W Arnold's view is that this is not a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.

• Yvette and Marie - Genevieve do not explain how a picture of a man preaching in a mosque can be attributed to the prohibition of intercalation when we know that this was done in the open, on camelback in front of thousands.

• The picture shows shiites cosying up to the Prophet and is intended for propaganda purposes, rather than to illustrate an abstruse theological point.

The RFC shows that the content is not disputed consensus was reached, as assed by the closer that the image should remain.

The caption says the picture is of prohibition of intercalation. The reader will infer (not synthesise) that the Farewell Pilgrimage consisted of six shiites gathered in a mosque listening to Muhammad preach.

Points 4 and 5

These can be taken together.

SPACKlick believes that a picture of an apple can be an illustration of an orange:

My position hasn't changed in the slightest but you seem to be missing the distinction being drawn between an image IS a thing and an image is an ILLUSTRATION of a thing. Here we have an illustration intended to illustrate an event. Even if the facts of the illustration and the facts of the event wildly differ it can still be an illustration of that event.

In the example you give we have a picture of a man slaying a dragon. Where in this picture are the thousands of pilgrims, Mount Ararat and the camel which would enable you to make this logical leap. And how do you explain away the presence of mosque furniture?

If we're going to divorce what is in the picture from our interpretation of it then you can equally logically caption it "Muhammad hailing a taxi in Oxford Street".

Then the argument becomes incomprehensible:

1) A photo taken of PersonA in the market between stalls before they bought item x

2) A drawing of PersonA in the market between stalls created across the time where they bought x but showing what was seen before they bought x 3) A drawing created without visual reference to the market at all at a later date showing PersonA in the market between stalls.

In all three situations even though the contents of the images could be identical the third one is different for captioning purposes. It could very reasonably be called "PersonA buying x in the market" Because it is an image illustrating that event.

And that demonstrates exactly why you are wrong. The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z. The caption "PersonA buying x in the market is simply wrong.

Hang on, how can you claim "The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z." when the three pictures show the same scene and differ only in how and when they were created. In all 3 PersonA (who I note you choose to assume is a woman) is standing between stalls in a market. The Difference is that 3) is not trying to depict a realistic moment seen by the artist but trying to illustrate a later description of that event. 3) is an illustration of PersonA in the market. 3) is an Illustration of PersonA in the market buying x. 3) is not an illustration of the transaction where PersonA bought x I'd agree.

Points 6 and 7

These can be taken together. They are covered in the ES in the portion beginning "An editor comments" and ending "removed him from her watchlist."

Point 8

Here is a list of the edits adding the picture to Islamic calendar by AstroLynx (A), CambridgeBayWeather (C), NeilN (N) and SPACKlick (S). Where a sourced image caption is removed and replaced by an unsourced image caption the entry is in bold. Although the picture was used from February 2008 the claim that it was Muhammad prohibiting intercalation was not added until April 2009.

2008 - April 17A, June 9A, November 12 (Euryalus - possible conflict of interest here).

2009 - July 20A, Oct. 30N, Dec. 7A, Dec. 18N.

2010 - Mar. 22N, Apr. 4N, Apr. 14A, Apr. 21N, Apr. 24N, May 21N, June 14A, Aug. 14A, Aug. 15 (Doug Weller, who not only added the picture but also semi - protected the page - possible conflict of interest here), Nov. 16A, Dec. 13A.

2011 - Jan. 25A, Apr. 24N, May 1N, May 13N, May 27N, June 19C, June 30A (2 reversions), July 25C, July 27A, July 28A, Aug. 25A, Aug. 29C, Sept. 5A, Sept. 9A (3 reversions). AstroLynx couldn't revert any more because of 3RR so it was left to CambridgeBayWeather to do the fourth reversion on 11 Sept. Oct. 11A, Oct. 14A (2 reversions), Oct. 15C, Oct. 17A, Oct. 18A (2 reversions), Oct. 31A, Dec. 9A.

2012 - Jan. 9A, Jan. 23A, Jan. 25C, Mar. 12A, July 9N. On 10 July Wiqi55 amended the caption under edit summary most commonly accepted theory does not link it to intercalation. NeilN reverted the same day. July 24A, Aug. 20A, Sept. 12A, Sept. 17C, Oct. 19A, Oct. 30A, Nov. 12A, Nov. 17C, Nov. 24C, Nov. 30A, Dec. 17A.

2013 - Jan. 5C, Jan. 22A, Feb. 3C, Mar. 4C, Apr. 28C, May 2C, May 28C, Nov. 9N (2 reversions).

2014 - Jan. 11N, Mar. 6C, Mar. 17N, July 28A, Aug. 20N, Sept. 26N, Oct. 15N, Oct. 15A, Oct. 15N, Oct. 24N, Nov. 19N.

2015 - Jan. 21N, Mar. 22A, Mar. 23A, Mar. 23N, Mar. 23N (describing the addition of sources as "pointy"). On 24 March CambridgeBayWeather semi - protected the page. Apr. 9N, Apr. 9S, Apr. 13A, Apr. 13S, July 16A (2 reverts).

Point 9

The warning was delivered by 87.81.147.76 at 18:10, 12 April 2015 and repeated at 10:47, 13 April. SPACKlick acknowledged at 18:12, 12 April.

The cover - up

AstroLynx claimed (Talk:Islamic calendar 15:09, 31 January 2015) that the Farewell Sermon was unique among Muhammad's homilies in that nobody knows how and where it was delivered. This lie was exposed by 86.145.48.124 at 10:29, 23 July. The post was removed four minutes later by Future Perfect at Sunrise, who went on to block half a million people for Long - term abuse although no LTA report has been filed. Nineteen minutes later Mr. Stradivarius semi - protected the page. Both the article and the talk page remain semi - protected.

Third party observation

There seems to be a polarisation into two camps - QuackGuru and his supporters and SPACKlick and his supporters. It's not difficult to see which camp S Marshall falls into. SPACKlick's camp don't want his dirty linen to be washed in public but that would appear to be unfair to QuackGuru. I'm impressed by the industrious way Quack works, and I think sanctioning him would be a mistake. Within the past few days we've had the 2015 ASH survey and the government report saying e - cigarettes are 95% less harmful than combustible ones. We need Quack on hand at this time.

Addendum to proposed finding of fact

10. SPACKlick is not here to build an encyclopaedia in a collegial manner. He is here to trick other editors into saying they agree with him.

He behaves like the confidence trickster who posed as a delivery man to get an elderly householder to sign a "receipt" which was actually a folded over Land Registry transfer document.

Supplementary information:

To try and bring this back to the issue. The agreed points as far as I can see are;

• This image we show is a copy created in or about the 17th century of an original illustration from Al-Biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (a.k.a. Chronology of Ancient Nations).
• The section of the manuscript illustrated by this image is the section where Biruni discusses Mohammed's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage.

are either of the above in dispute?

So why don't you craft a caption building on the above?

Before I move on I want to confirm, you agree neither of the above are in dispute?

It's not me. You have to get a consensus of the editors who participate in the discussion.

Thing is, I'm pretty confident everyone agrees on those two points except you, given the pre-existing consensus but why not state clearly whether you agree with those two points?

If you're confident go ahead and do it. End of story.

This is my point, given the above 2 points, the current caption is satisfactory.