Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence

The workshop and evidence phase of this case has ended. Please do not add further comments to the workshop, nor submissions to the evidence or workshop pages. Further submissions will not be accepted, and the Arbitration Committee will not take them into account. Brief comments regarding the proposed decision will be accepted on the proposed decision talk page, and general comments regarding the case will be accepted on the case talk page.

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

Case clerk: NuclearWarfare (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK (Talk)

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: 499; diff count: 36.

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 ([1][2]), User:Resolute made a compromise proposal that attracted majority support on Talk:Muhammad/images. [3][4].
• 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. [5][6]
• 1/12/2011: Implementation reverted again by User:FormerIP [7][8]

Misrepresentations of NPOV policy

• [9] – WP:NPOV cannot be divorced from what sources do, as the neutral point of view is defined as reflecting sources' viewpoints in due proportion.
• [10] – WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE, applies to images as well as text, and has done for many years. [11]
• [12] – 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.
• [13][14] – 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. [15])

Talk page disruption

• [16][17][18][19][20]

Reply to Coren

My and others' argument isn't based on offensiveness. Offensiveness is indeed irrelevant. The editorial standards of sources however are highly relevant. It is their judgment we should follow. In this case, my impression is that we show more images of Muhammad, and specifically more unveiled images, 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 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 shouldn't knowingly set out to depart from them, under the hubristic assumption that we know better.

@Coren

[21].

Ludwigs2 and Tarc

Personalised disputes in multiple venues: [22][23]; [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]; [32]; [33][34][35][36][37][38][39] etc.

Kww

"Muslim scholars are not reliable sources": [40]

Tivanir2

[41]

Re to ASCIIn2Bme

• [42]2nd para [43] [44]

• Schimmel: 137 citations for "And Muhammad ..." in Google Scholar.

• The "Ascension" image in Ernst doesn't show Muhammad, but exemplifies modern painting in Iran ...(pp. 194, 196).

Evidence presented by ASCIIn2Bme

Current word length: 456; diff count: 26.

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

[45]

But the WMF board explicitly decided to ignore that recommendation

[46]

Insofar, the Wikipedia community was unable to find much practical guidance in the WMF Resolution

[47]

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

Statement. Game over? Maybe not?

In a facsimile of his behavior in other topic areas, Ludwigs2 has been uncivil and inflammatory

In May 2011, ArbCom "cautioned [him] to discuss matters more circumspectly and to avoid drama-creating rhetoric" [48]. In October 2011, Ludwigs2 was topic-banned from Astrology for poisoning-the-well comments (AE). Concomitant complaints for his tone at Pregnancy: [49].

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)

Anthonyhcole contradicts himself on Ludwigs2's disruptiveness

November vs. December. Analysis.

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

permalink.

JN466: POV pushing through double standards

He insists that Islam for dummies [50] is a good source because it's written by an academic (ignoring the audience), but when presented with some other books written by academics, JN466 disparages them as being written for students or young adults. [51]

JN466: POV pushing through source misrepresentations

Enormously overstates an author's credentials as biographer of Muhammad, [52] (even after adjustment [53]); compare with [54] which makes no mention that she might even have written a biography of Muhammad, and the book cited by JN466 isn't one. [55] On the other hand, JN466 dismisses other specialist books that focus on paintings rather than Sufi prose/poetry. [56]

Another example: JN466 notices the hylia by a modern calligrapher in Ernst's book on contemporary Islam [57], but says nothing of the Persian-style image of Ascension found later in the book (p. 196), and implies that such an image is absent from the book.

JN466: POV pushing through falsehoods

False assertion that anthropomorphic images played no public role. [58] Muhammad's Persian-style images weren't spared the printing press once that was invented. [59]

JN466: POV pushing through unsupported claims

Claims there is "prevalence of photographs of the Kaaba in reliable sources on Muhammad" [60] Evidence? If anything, English-language academic biographies tend to have no illustrations inside or are limited to maps. Similar pushing of two images of the Quran JN466 forgets his strict sourcing standards and argues from his gut feeling.

Evidence presented by Eraserhead1

Current word length: 520; diff count: 36.

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 [61].

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
Jayen466's implementation of Resolute's compromise	4	2	10023	0.40	0.20

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.

Article	Number of pictures	Number of depictions	Percentage of images as depictions
Muhammad	21/24	6	29%/25%
William Shakespeare	13	4	31%
Guy Fawkes	6	3	50%
Joan of Arc	18	10	56%
Johannes Kepler	21	6	29%
Blackbeard	6	4	67%
William Garrow	5	1	20%
Zhou Tong	11	7	63%
Elizabeth I of England	21	10	48%

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
  • [62], [63]
• Tarc
  • [64] [65] [66]
    • Lesser issues on the same lines: [67] [68] [69]
• Resolute
  • Lesser, but along the same lines [70] [71]

WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour

General battleground behavour.

• Tarc
  • [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]
• Ludwigs
  • Lesser [81] [82] [83]
• Johnbod
  • [84]
• FormerIP
  • discussion leading up to this point between FormerIP and Jayen466
• EggCentric
  • [85] [86]

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
  • [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]

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: [92] [93]

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 [94])

Evidence presented by Coren

Current word length: 150; 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: [95]. — Coren ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 01:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole

The problem is that "offensiveness" isn't a metric, it's an opinion. While there are processes on Wikipedia which are based on subjective evaluations (article grading and featured media come to mind), inclusion criteria aren't (nor should they be). — Coren ^(talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (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: [96]. Said editor came to agree that a topic ban is necessary: [97].

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: 388; diff count: 43.

For context and reference, the original post I made that started this dispute: observation about the Foundation resolution

Failure of Consensus at Muhammad

Initial Conditions

• Use of a subpage to ghettoize complaints So they would not be visible to those watching the article itself. [98]
• Use of header templates to explicitly block discussion:

  Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article

• First six responses to my original post, reflecting anti-Islamic sentiments, and broad refusal to engage discussion
  1. This may come as a surprise to you, but Wikipedia does not cater exclusively to Muslims.
  2. Common practice in the Muslim community shouldn't create any expectations on the contents of an encyclopedia.
  3. Furthermore, your argument contains false assumptions: that all readers of this article are Muslim, and that all Muslims are offended by images. Neither of those assumptions is true so your reasoning is false.
  4. I was impressed that Wikipedia refused to cave in to the demands of a minority.
  5. discussion collapsed
     • my second post, after uncollapse:[99]
  6. I expect encyclopedias to give no credence to religious perspectives and sensibilities. I'm of the impression that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the "astonishment" registered on this page is from Muslim editors.

Statements hostile to Muslims, Muslim editors, or religion in general

Tarc:Note the hostility in Tarc's first post to the thread, muslims as a 'vocal minority'

RobertMfromLi:[100], Wikipedia becomes Islamopedia - or (...) Religopedia, the only (ie: real) reason for this RfC is to coddle those who wish to try to take policies and apply them as means of removing all of the images, asserting Muslim editors want to remove all images

Kww:[101], [102]

DocTropics:with the Islamop[edia comment

Assertions of bad faith

Tarc:[103], [104], [105], [106], [107]

Amatulic:[108]

Resolute:[109], [110], Don't let Ludwigs pick yet another fight

RobertMfromLi:[111], claiming that I believe we should adhere to Muslim beliefs

Attempts to force-terminate discussion or disrupt DR

Resolute:consensus holds that...

RobertMfromLi:community has already decided on this...,[112], [113]

Tarc:the matter is already resolved, [114]

Yopienso:[115]

Resolute:[116], [117]

hyperbolic extremes

RobertMfromLi:[118]

claim that NOTCENSORED is the most important policy

RobertMfromLi:[119]

diffs added to demonstrate that I am acting in good faith

[120], [121], [122]

This is only through October 24th (I ran out of time and patience with this nonsense), but this should demonstrate the obstructionism and hostility used on the page to squelch the consensus process. --Ludwigs2 07:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tarc

Current word length: 276; 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

Time and time and time again, Ludwigs has accused other editors of having racist motivations if they express an opinion that they wish to keep the present # of images in the article, or if they feel "offense to Muslims" should not be a concern of the project.

• link
• link
• link
• link
• 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 Wikipedia 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

Incredibly, Ludwigs has continued to denigrate and slur other editors during the Arbcom proceedings. When given opportunity to clarify or retract, he just reiterates.

• link

A new section at the Workshop talk page. This gist of this latest one is that Ludwigs believes himself to be smarter than anyone else in the room ("My flaw here...is that I am stubbornly intelligent"), where if he hears an argument that, to him, sounds racist, ("It is an observable fact that you regularly make statements that can easily be interpreted as anti-Islamic") then that person must defend himself. All of this ignores the tiny fact that no one, in any point of these discussions, has ever made a statement that could be construed as racist. If someone has, we have yet to be presented the evidence.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 | ^TK/_CN 01:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tivanir2

Current word length: 307; diff count: 3.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Combative behavior pointed towards myself from Ludwigs2 As people have linked the other responses I would also like to include the behavior pointed at myself. Various attacks These direct quotes make up the bulk of what was said against myself and I will include any resolutions if there was a request (such as an apology expected after certain comments.) "I still assert that you can only make such an extreme dichotomy from a position of deep prejudice, in which you refuse to allow religions even one iota of respect (for personal reasons of your own, assumedly). that's not acceptable on a collaborative project." "Tivanir2:I'm sorry if you took this personally - not my intent. To my way of viewing things one can easily hold a prejudice without being prejudiced. It's usually just a matter of not having thought things through." (justification of position above) "LMAO: see, this is exactly what I'm talking about - you guys are pure unadulterated advocates. Tarc doesn't feel the need to explain his position but argues for it endlessly regardless, Tivanir2 wants to recast an article as a pure biography just to avoid dealing with cultural issues, Amatulić bases his argument on interpretation of scripture and refuses to allow any other interpretation to be considered. If I had to judge solely by your behavior I'd have to think you were died-in-the-wool religious fanatics determined to cast your faith in the 'correct' light." Most other comments I would post are already included by other editors but those are the bulk dealing with me just on speculation I am somehow prejudice.

• 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 [[123]], [[124]], [[125]]. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kww

Current word length: 140; 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 [126][127]
• 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].

"Principle of Least Astonishment" has been soundly rejected by the Wikipedia community

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Follow_the_principle_of_least_astonishment&oldid=470467835 —Kww(talk) 13:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Johnbod

Current word length: 393; diff count: 0.

Article already meets all policy requirements

The article has from 2005 shown an abnormal treatment of images for a biography. Despite an abundance of images of Muhammad being available, only very few have been used, and these placed increasingly lower down the page, starting on my 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, and commercial publishers have been terrified of potential offence to Muslims since Satanic Verses in 1988. In Wikipedia, the obvious comparator, Jesus, has 46 images, 37 including a depiction of Jesus and 9 not. Muhammad has 25 images, 6 depictions, 10 calligraphy (already too many imo) and 9 other - and also long unillustrated sections. The shorter Buddha has 14 images, 12 including him and 2 not. 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 some. Nor are conventional images of Jesus and Buddha based on any authentic likennesses, though there are verbal ones for Buddha and Muhammad but not Jesus. The plethora of images of Jesus we show nearly all come from the narrow period of Renaissance/Baroque Roman Catholicism, and are far from representative of the broad history of Christianity, and obviously don't reflect the objection many Protestant churches still have to such images, and all once had. Probably some Protestants are still offended by such imagery, though not as violently 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. Appropriate illustration of narrative incidents is normally considered good without question; suddenly its value is dismssed here with no evidence or informed consideration of the issues.

Despite this, there is no recognition by many of the compromise already in place, and more is demanded. The article already breaches the principle of least astonishment by having so few images and in view of the WMF board's pronouncement should go no further in this direction. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mathsci

Current word length: 484; diff count: 50.

Discussion of how historical images of Muhammad should be displayed is happening in the real world

ArbCom will presumably suggest a calm, orderly and informed process for seeking the community's views on the use of images and coming to a binding conclusion. My only comments here, beyond the need to look at appropriate secondary sources, are that a similar issue has occupied directors of Islamic collections in major museums in the world in the last one or two years. In particular, in addition to the British Library, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and collections in the Near East, there are the newly established Museum of Islamic Art, Doha (financed by the Aga Khan) and new Islamic sections in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Pergamon Museum of Islamic Art. Almost all these museums have chosen to exhibit a limited number of illuminated manuscripts containing images of Muhammad.

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

At the beginning of November 2011, there was a lengthy thread on Ludwigs2 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#User talk:Ludwigs2 on Talk:Muhammad/images. There had been a prior report concerning Talk:Pregnancy and at WP:AE concerning Astrology, where he was topic banned for 6 months under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. A parallel discussion on historical images started on User talk:Jimbo Wales, where I added comments on secondary sources on Persian miniatures (Ernst J. Grube and Omid Safi). Those discussions surprisingly resulted in a way forward in selecting images based on sources and I started participating in a minor way on Talk:Muhammad/Images.

Ludwigs2 does not primarily add content to wikipedia: his editing history indicates that he has preferred to enter problematic off-beat areas often with his own ready-made solutions. In this particular case his initial stated view in March 2011 was that there should be no depictions of Muhammad, although he has subsequently shown some willingness to compromise. In March and later after October, he spent most of his time arguing against those who did not support that point of view. He has stated that he believes there is an ideological divide between editors pro and anti images. Ludwigs2's main activity on wikipedia in 2011 has been to engage in heated debate with his perceived opponents, several of them experienced administrators. At no stage has he discussed a secondary source. Instead he has indulged persistently in point-scoring and unduly personalised responses, seeking to portray his opponents as lacking the intellectual capacity to make a rational argument, or worse. The failure to use sources, but rely on himself as the ultimate unquestioned resource, seems incompatible with the way wikipedia articles are written. Here is a selection of diffs that illustrate this problematic approach. I have not looked in depth at other users: my first impression is that Tarc is one of the main editors targeted by Ludwigs2 and that he sometimes responds in kind.

• all: [128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138]
• Allanscottwalker: [139]
• Amatulic: [140][141][142]
• BladeoftheNorthernLights:[143]
• FormerIP: [144]
• GoodDay: [145][146]
• Johnbod: [147]
• JoHutton: [148]
• Kww:[149][150][151][152][153][154]
• Resolute:[155][156][157][158]
• RobertMFromLi: [159][160][161][162][163][164][165]
• Tarc: [166][167][168][169][170][171][172]
• Thryduulf: [173][174]
• Tivanir2: [175]
• Will Beback: [176]

This problematic conduct has continued in a similar but slightly different form on the ArbCom pages and the clerk's talk page.[177]

Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole

Current word length: 468; diff count: 9.

Offensiveness matters

My proposals

WP:GRATUITOUS says, when multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Take Muhammad#Childhood_and_early_life. It tells the story of a sacred black stone and is illustrated by an image that will be offensive to most Muslims and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the event. There is an alternative image, a photograph of the actual stone, which is at least as informative about the subject, and is not offensive. I opened a thread with the intention of proposing this alternative on the talk page but was shouted down. [178] I was described as disingenuous and sly, and petulant for objecting to being called disingenuous and sly. I had encountered this kind of rudeness and refusal to discuss soon after joining in the conversation, [179] so at this point I gave up editing that page.

However, I believe this is an example where we can legitimately take offensiveness into account, without harming the educational value of the encyclopedia, and so should. But many editors refuse to take offensiveness into account under any circumstances.

Thoughts on offensive content

• JN466 "Offensiveness is indeed irrelevant."
• Amatulic "offending people should never be a consideration when building encyclopedic content"
• Tarc[180] "Simply "being offensive", an arguable point in itself, will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article." "Offense is simply not a concern."
• Former IP "There is a community consensus [...] against any proposal that seeks to minimise the risk of the article causing offence."
• Coren "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 ..."

It seems to me that never considering offensiveness when curating content, as WP:NOTCENSORED is said to demand, is a socially incompetent perspective, inimical to our mission.

Dealing with offensive behaviour

I deal with it by simply leaving the topic, and finding one where I don't have to experience it. Most people do; or they leave the project. Ludwigs2 takes it on, and look where that gets him. The project has a problem. It is so toxic that virtually no scholars involve themselves with it, and regular editors are leaving in droves. The Foundation in its April 2011 resolution on openness urges us to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers.

Principle of least astonishment has not been soundly rejected by the community

The RfC was too early. I opposed it. Respondents clearly displayed confusion about the resolution's meaning, and about whether it addressed this project and whether we're obliged to follow it. All of these points need to be made very clear, particularly its actual meaning, before this can be profitably put before an RfC. [181]

Evidence presented by Hans Adler

Current word length: 242; diff count: 42.

Effect of NOTCENSORED invocations

• History of NOTCENSORED analysed here.
• Some Christians feel offended by classifying Genesis as "myth", though many scholars use "creation myth" freely. Numerous disputes about this since January 2009. Normal editorial decisions based on WP:RNPOV. WP:NOTCENSORED only invoked to enforce reasonable discussion.
• Focus on WP:NOTCENSORED at autofellatio keeps weird photo at top of page, not moved down in favour of drawing from commons:Category:Drawings of autofellatio.
• Pregnancy dispute at archives 4–7 escalated by militant anti-censors until Jimbo's RfC closure.
• Legitimate NOTCENSORED use for Virgin Killer controversy and actual attack from outside against Muhammad images on Wikipedia (early 2008 [182]).

Tarc's unfair status quo defence

Got involved after 27 hours / 28 posts (10 editors). 30%–50% of edits since then related to dispute, mostly escalating / battleground type. Overall quality constant, so analysis restricted to October.

All 46 relevant October edits except typo corrections and such:

• 1–3
• 4–13
• 14, 15 (14 is first constructive edit)
• 16, 17
• 18, 19
• 20, 21, 22 (21 removed after 22)
• 23–26
• 27, 28
• 29–31, 32
• 33, 34, 35–38 (37 struck after 38; 38 creates new section)
• 39, 40–41
• 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

3, 5, 18 are on UT:Tarc; 10, 12 on WP:WQA; 19 at Arbcom. Others on Talk:Muhammad/Images.

Later examples: A B C D E F G H J K L M.

Noformation reported Ludwigs2 to ANI with unclean hands

Evidence of unconstructive behaviour not strong, but seems necessary in my defence for calling him not one of the worst. Page state at report time. Diffs: [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188]. Nothing relevant between 0:43 ultimatum and (tendentious) 1:11 report? Hans Adler 12:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Elonka

Current word length: 53; diff count: 1.

Offering an example of IP 96.241.54.85 (talk · contribs) trolling the Elonka Dunin page, in a way that is obviously related to this case (see edit summary).[189] I'm not sure if the arbs would like to run a checkuser on it, but I thought I'd mention it here in case it's helpful. --Elonka 20:37, 11 January 2012 (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.