Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Dispute resolution

1) Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if internal discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 03:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
11. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sober eyes

2) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. At least this is true where a clear consensus doesn't emerge among those participating in the discussion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. True in the general case. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
11. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral Point of View

3) Wikipedia content must be presented from a neutral viewpoint.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
11. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikipedia is Not Censored

4.1) If a religion or belief system is opposed to the depiction, or inclusion of depictions, of a topic, our policy is not to deliberately contravene that opposition. Instead, the tenet that "Wikipedia is not censored" (or ' WP:NOTCENSORED') holds that Wikipedia must disregard such opposition in our decisions about the inclusion of content, and that external beliefs or religion will not cause the exclusion of the content in question.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The first sentence is clearly correct, but the second is overstated. In particular, the reference to "external beliefs" is vague. As one example (admittedly having little to do with the specifics of the Mohammad case), there is a common feeling, widespread though not universal among humanity, that certain types of bodily activities should be kept private—some people would encompass that view as part of a "belief system." The existence of this widespread view would not prevent us, as a consensus editorial judgment, from including a depiction of such activity in an article where it was directly relevant—but it certainly could be an important factor in deciding to exclude it on a page where the depiction was only marginally relevant. Put differently, external beliefs or religion will not cause the exclusion of content, but I'm not prepared to say they will never be relevant in our deciding whether to include or exclude content, which is the implication of disregarding them completely. I think Casliber has put his finger on the core of a possible rewording. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Per Brad; this is unacceptably vague as written. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Per Brad, and I generally don't like this wording at all, we don't "disregard" people's viewpoints. Courcelles 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Per Brad,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 4.2. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

"disregard" is a strong word, we do take into account all points of view, and this issue has been part of the discussion and can't be summarily ignored. I'd reword along the lines of, "... that Wikipedia must balance such opposition in our decisions about the inclusion of content, with scholarly discussion and alternate views which advocate inclusion." Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is Not Censored

4.2) If a religion, belief system, or other viewpoint is opposed to the depiction, or inclusion of depictions, of a topic, our policy is not to deliberately contravene that opposition. Instead, the tenet that "Wikipedia is not censored" (or ' WP:NOTCENSORED') holds that Wikipedia should balance such opposition in our decisions about the inclusion of content, with scholarly discussion and alternate views which advocate inclusion.

Support:

1. Prefer this alternative, which is based on Casliber's comment. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Think this is much better on balance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. yep. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Provisional oppose, simply because I believe this is now covered in 5.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. per Brad. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 4.1 to this version. Jclemens ( talk) 00:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Per Brad. 5.1 covers it.   Roger Davies ^talk 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Why limit this to just belief systems? I prefer a generalized approach that doesn't single out belief systems. Jclemens ( talk) 15:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I've modified the wording slightly. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Fetishisation of policy

5) It is unhelpful to fetishise the policy of resisting censorship. "Wikipedia is not censored" means we disregard the canon and views of religion, not that we pointedly resist censorship in any decision about content that is the subject of religious controversy.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Entirely wrong--and not just wrong, it ABF's those who believe in opposing efforts to restrict what people can see, hear, and think. Wikipedia IS about sharing information freely; attempted censorship, of whatever motivation, is directly opposed to Wikipedia's goals. Jclemens ( talk) 23:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   I did not mean to communicate such a message, and I don't think the principle implies anything like that. The meaning is that ideals like "Wikipedia isn't censored" shouldn't be used to scaremonger, nor to suppress any argument that has even the tiniest hint of adhering to the principle of least surprise: that we only include astonishing content if reasonably necessary. Do you intend to propose an alternative decision about balancing censorship and least-astonishment? I made it clear to you some time ago that I intend to include such a principle for some time. AGK [•] 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   ... And I said on the ArbWiki draft that I opposed it. I do, in fact, believe that we should pointedly resist attempts at censorship. This decision is a good opportunity to reaffirm such basic principles. Regardless, as was pointed out to me a few months ago, reviewing niche or uncommon terms in Wiktionary (i.e. wikt:fetish) is a good idea; two of the three definitions listed there are clearly negative, beyond which I can support, and beyond what I believe you mean in drafting this principle. Jclemens ( talk) 23:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

2. I do not believe that AGK meant by this principle what Jclemens interpreted it to mean, but the fact that he reached such an interpretation suggests that others may do so as well, so that the proposal needs to be rephrased. Per my comment on 4, I also would prefer not to use the word "disregard." Proposing 5.1 as alternative. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Per Jclemens, although it should be noted that not everything called "censorship" is actually censorship. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Per above. Courcelles 03:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Per preceding. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Per above,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Editorial decisions and resistance to censorship

5.1) The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that "Wikipedia is not censored" will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content. In particular, if an element (a statement or an image) does not otherwise belong in an article, the fact that people want it excluded is a poor argument for including it. A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Support:

1. I'm sure this needs copyediting, but I think it addresses the comments above. The reference to policies and guidelines is meant to incorporate supervening limits on our content such as core copyright concepts and the BLP policy. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Works for me. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Better alternative. It's worth noting that sometimes the easiest way to get publicity for something is an attempt to ban it, such that there have been controversies over various fictional content in the last 20 years that I believe to have been manufactured for the sole purpose of increasing awareness and commercial success of the projects in question. Jclemens ( talk) 02:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. I think we could make this less convoluted-sounding but...yeah. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. With copyedit (to remove a double negative and fix singular/plural concordance). Replaced "In particular, if a statement or an image otherwise would not belong in an article, it is not a reasonable argument for including it that there are people who want it excluded" with "In particular, if an element (a statement or an image) does not otherwise belong in an article, the fact that people want it excluded is a poor argument for including it". Please revert if you disagree,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. This is what I was driving at in 5), but (as much as 5) was overly brief) may be verbose as written. AGK [•] 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
11. Courcelles 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Principle of Least Astonishment

6) The Wikimedia Foundation's "Principle of least astonishment" holds that the content of Wikipedia should only be made to 'astonish' the editor (relative to what norms they hold by virtue of society, culture, or religion) when such an astonishment is necessary to the publication of a complete, informative, and balanced article. The English Wikipedia community was, at the time of this decision, discussing this principle of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Arbitration Committee will not attempt to interfere with the decision about applying this principle. However, it is the view of this Committee that, though principles and general policy are of limited use if it is unclear how they can be applied, the "Principle of least astonishment" is a sensible companion to the tenet that "Wikipedia is not censored".

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No, any individual reader is not the standard. A reasonable man is the standard. Else we could just turn off Wikipedia now because it might surprise the Amish. Jclemens ( talk) 23:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 6.2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. overly complicated, prefer 6.2 Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Per Cas,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 6.2. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 6.2 as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 19:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. In favor of 6.2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. per Jclemens. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I've proposed 6.2 as a possible alternative. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Principle of Least Astonishment (alternative)

6.1) The Wikimedia Foundation's "Principle of least astonishment" holds that the content of Wikipedia should only be made to 'astonish' the editor when such an astonishment is necessary to the publication of a complete, informative, and balanced article. The English Wikipedia community was, at the time of this decision, discussing this principle of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Arbitration Committee will not attempt to interfere with the decision about applying this principle. However, it is the view of this Committee that, though principles and general policy are of limited use if it is unclear how they can be applied, the "Principle of least astonishment" is a sensible companion to the tenet that "Wikipedia is not censored".

Support:

1. Second choice to 6). Proposed per Jclemens' comments during drafting, with the exclusion of the parenthesised comment of the parent proposal. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 6.2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. overly complicated, prefer 6.2 Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Again per Cas,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 6.2. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer following. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. In favour of 6.2 Courcelles 19:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. In favor of 6.2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Better than the above, but needs more wordsmithing. Of course we won't interfere--because that's not within our scope. I also think "necessary" is too strong a wording in the first sentence--"appropriate" would be better. I may propose an alternative that doesn't editorialize so much. Jclemens ( talk) 23:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Please do propose an alternative. AGK [•] 23:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I've proposed 6.2 as one possible alternative. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Of the three principles on the table, this is the only one I could support. I think "necessary" is OK, esp as featured content needs to be selective in what to include, so editors need to be able to justify that any controversial/astonishing content is necessary. Images is an area which has especially poor content guidelines. The MOS is starting to deal with this at Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature, but there is a long way to go. Wikipedia:BLP#Images offers some guidance for exclusion of images from BLPs. afaik, the only area where we have good policy is for non-free images, as these images are deleted unless they can be justified by means of fairly well articulated criteria, and one of the main requirements is that the specific image is discussed in the article text. (search for the word "commentary" in esp. the images section of Wikipedia:Non-free#Images.) I think that the community will eventually implement the WMF BoT resolution by developing a policy for controversial/astonishing content that is similar in nature to the WP:NFCC. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Principle of Least Astonishment (alternative)

6.2) The "principle of least astonishment" articulated by the Wikimedia Foundation in this resolution is one relevant principle that editors should take into account in deciding what images are appropriate for inclusion in a given article.

Support:

1. I realize that this provides only limited guidance for concrete cases, but the number of potential applications of this principle is such that I'm reluctant to be more specific, especially given that the community is still deciding how (if at all) to adapt the Foundation's views into our policies and guidelines. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. It says nothing about that POLA actually means, which is probably not inappropriate, given how unsettled the meaning of that language actually is at the moment. Jclemens ( talk) 02:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Restating policy - not overly complicated and probably doesn't need to be. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer this,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. In retrospect, I think it is far too soon for us to be interpreting the Principle; better to note that it exists in our decision, and let the community take it from there (if it can). AGK [•] 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Courcelles 19:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. Only choice. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. WP:POLA is a failed proposal. As such, I dont think it is appropriate for ArbCom to support the vague principle provided by the WMF BoT. We do not want to encourage editors to use the failed POLA proposal in content discussions. The community needs to first work out how to implement POLA. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm aware of the discussion on the talkpage, particularly the concern that the proposed principle as framed has this Committee taking sides in the debate over whether the "principle of least astonishment" should be adopted as policy on WP-EN or not. Having considered the input there, I still think the wording is good as it stands: I have little hesitation in affirming that our editors should consider the institutional views of the Wikimedia Foundation along with all other relevant sources of input in making content decisions. But if it were proposed to substitute "may" for "should," the proposal would certainly be worth discussing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I've added a link to the resolution, per suggestions on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Role of the Arbitration Committee

7) Although the Arbitration Committee can be useful in disputes about content by clarifying its core issues and providing for a resolution, its role is not to adjudicate such disputes. The committee will not unilaterally resolve disputes about article content, and such disputes will inevitably require subsequent action by the Wikipedia community.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. A bit wordy, but we've been saying for a bit that the previous boilerplate was a bit too terse. Jclemens ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) switched per Kirill etc. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

3. (Needs a little copyediting, e.g. not sure what antecedent the "its" before "core issues" refers to.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Second choice, prefer 7.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not comfortable with the second sentence; inevitability is not an assertion to be casually made. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   It's a secondary clause that records the status quo - which I think we will agree is that we don't resolve content disputes. I don't see how 7.1) alternative is in any way better than this, nor than the overly-brief boilerplate we've used for years. AGK [•] 12:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

2. In favour of 7.1 Courcelles 04:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. per Kirill. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Per Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 7.1. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

7.1) Although the Arbitration Committee can be useful in disputes about content by clarifying the core issues and providing for a resolution, its role is not to adjudicate such disputes.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer to the above. Jclemens ( talk) 02:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Courcelles 04:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. prefer over preceding. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. (With minor copy-edit, first "its core issues" > "the core issues", as the subject of "its" is probably the committee not the dispute.) As ever, revert if I've completely misunderstood,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. If it is desired to also make the point that the Committee can establish an ad hoc binding procedure for addressing intractable content disputes when all else fails, there is wording we have used before for this point that might be uncontroversial. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. Only choice. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too brief; prefer 7). AGK [•] 12:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

8) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to all pages on Wikipedia, but especially to articles and article discussion pages.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 04:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Yep,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
11. In particular, I hope everyone notes the phrase "shared receptiveness to compromise". For matters of editorial choice, this is critical. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct and decorum

9) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Gaming the system

10) Once an outside pressure group has publicly requested that Wikipedia content be changed, future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the results desired by the outside pressure group.

Support:

1. Jclemens ( talk) 23:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. we have a core principle to build a neutral encyclopedia. Agree that consensus needs to be determined from within, not from outside. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I understand what is being driven at here, but this wording is far too strident. It is perfectly possible for "an outside pressure group" to advocate for a particular outcome in a content dispute and for one or more Wikipedia editors to support the same outcome, for reasons which may or may not be the same as the outside group's. And the proposed wording seems to overlook the possibility that the change in content requested by the outside group might be an entirely reasonable one that should be made. I'm not referring here to Mohammad images, but not every outside criticism of Wikipedia content is ill-taken. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. The fact that some external entity supports a change doesn't automatically make that change less worthy of consideration; plenty of outside requests for changes to content are perfectly legitimate (cf. OTRS). Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Per Brad and Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Per Brad and Kirill, John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 17:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Per Newyorkbrad and Kirill. Risker ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I didn't quite get this when we were workshopping, but I see what you're getting at now. Yes, I will support this - I think we need to say this in addition to the other things about balancing NOTCENSORED and Least Astonishment - but I think "suspicion" is the wrong word. I'll come back to this later, because the principles in this case are more important than they are in most. Thanks for your proposal - I should have had the foresight to include this in my draft. AGK [•] 23:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

There's an old adage that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure". No one who wants to remove images from the Muhammad article will come out and admit to having a motivation of prevention of blasphemy: the system rightly treats that input as non-policy-based and discards it. At the same time, there are any number of bright, motivated editors who may propose achieving that same goal, but familiarity with Wikipedia policy instructs them that stating their actual motivation will be unhelpful, if not outright counterproductive. Thus, I have seen any number of specious arguments raised that have little to no actual policy basis, but appear to be far less opposed to policy--applying WEIGHT or NPOV to images, for example, in order to achieve the effect of censoring images of Muhammad from the article. Without directly casting aspersions on these novel arguments which attempt to promote censorship, this principle intentionally applies a higher bar to censorship-promoting arguments. Jclemens ( talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Template

11) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Background to dispute

1) The dispute relates to the use of images at the article Muhammad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Broadly, the aim of the first faction of contributors was to retain the images used in the current version of the article, and the current order of images. 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. In Islam, drawings or paintings of Muhammad are rare, so this faction asserted the article must rely on artwork created after Muhammad's death (such as those from an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common) because no images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life.

The second faction of contributors moved for the removal of some (or less commonly, most) artistic 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 artistic portrayals of Muhammad is common in Islamic artistry, which corrupts the reader's understanding of the subject. Images of Muhammad are uncommon in Islam, and the reader would be surprised to find such images included. This faction argued that the of images of Muhammad were not important to the quality of the article, and therefore that the images 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. A decision was reached by consensus that some images of Muhammad should be included, although no agreement could be made about the precise number of images to include, nor which types of portrayals (if any) to use in replacement. 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.

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). The disputants explored a different composition of files, including more calligraphy and less images of Muhammad, and of a different order of images. 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 study of controversial content and statement on the 'principle of least astonishment'. The dispute has been deadlocked for some time, and its intractability has been compounded by the conduct of several disputants, which was abrasive, unprofessional, or confrontational.

Support:

Proposed as a summarised history of the dispute, which I think is necessary to explain most of the other provisions in our decision. AGK [•] 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I feel as though I slaughtered my own pig, but from the comments on the proposed decision talk page I cannot help but feel that a finding with this level of detail (and therefore as open to dispute as is this) will cause more problems than it would solve. Now prefer 1.1. AGK [•] 20:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

1. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Although I'm not necessarily in favor of using blow-by-blow accounts as background findings. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Puts things in context,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. I was about to say this is a bit much for a summary, but it's necessary at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I appreciate the attention that AGK gave to drafting this proposal and the proposed decision as a whole. However, this is much longer and more detailed than we generally include in a background finding, though I wouldn't oppose it for that reason alone. More importantly, extensive discussion by the parties and others on the talkpage suggests that while this summary is generally accurate as a whole, some specific details in it may be inaccurate or incomplete, while the accuracy of some others is sharply disputed. Given that this summary is not integral to the decision (it's not really referenced in any of the ensuing proposed findings or remedies), I think it is probably best to drop the extensive narrative and go with the more usual "locus of dispute" type of finding. Therefore, proposing 1.1 in lieu. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. The level of detail here is excellent. I think we need to split it into separate FoFs, as that allows easier discussion of the finer details by committee members and the community. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 18:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer it broken down into bite-sized chunks. (I think a summary like this might be helpful at an earlier point in the process, perhaps.) Risker ( talk) 01:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Minor copyedit, because there are no known images of Muhammad made during his life. Courcelles 08:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I was alerted to that error when I was publicly-workshopping this proposal, but it crept back into my final draft somehow. AGK [•] 12:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Locus of dispute

1.1) The locus of the dispute is the use of images in the article Muhammad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and allegations of poor user conduct by several editors engaged in discussions of this issue.

Support:

1. Proposed per my comment on 1, although I acknowledge this may be too much in the other direction. My apologies to everyone for not having made this proposal earlier. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Equal support. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 18:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Per my comment on 1). AGK [•] 20:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. This works too. Jclemens ( talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Equal support. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 01:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Courcelles 02:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. Equal support,   Roger Davies ^talk 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

1.2) 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. [1] An English Wikipedia proposal to adopt the Wikimedia Foundation resolution was initiated after the start of this Arbitration case, and the proposed wording was rejected by the community during this Arbitration case. [2]

Support:

1. The first part is as proposed by Elonka. [3] The second part is the current state of play. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 18:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC) This is in addition to 1.1. reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Will support this despite AGK's points, which are well taken, and I would endorse copyedits along those lines. Jclemens ( talk) 03:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. As written, this overstates the scope of the community discussion, which was limited to the question of whether a specific page should be tagged as a guideline rather than being a discussion of the WMF resolution in principle. It is unclear to me, in any case, whether the community has the authority to reject a WMF mandate in principle; arguably, the most that the community could do would be to reject a particular proposal as regards the implementation of that mandate. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Per Kirill. Risker ( talk) 01:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Per Kirill. Courcelles 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Substantially per Kirill. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Also substantially per Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I feel this proposal duplicates principle 5.1) in part, but it deals with the separate issue of implementing the principle of least surprise which would lead me to support. However, I think it is an overstatement to say that the resolution "was rejected by the community", because the proposal on that page did not enjoy wide participation, and such a statement is especially problematic because it might be interpreted to mean we think the principle itself was rejected by the English Wikipedia. I wonder if some amendment to the wording is possible here. (I also made some prose changes, which I hope are acceptable.) AGK [•] 20:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

IMO your change from "The proposal" to a conjunction leaves the reader less clear about what was rejected. I've changed it to "and the proposed wording" as suggested by user:Franamax at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Proposed decision#Suggestion for wording of FoF 1.2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply

FormerIP (conduct)

2) FormerIP's engagement in the discussion about depictions of Muhammad has, on some occasions, been disruptive. ( [4], [5]).

Support:

1. I nevertheless recognise that FormerIP's engagement with this dispute has been generally acceptable, with the obvious (and notable) exceptions listed above. AGK [•] 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. if you feel otherwise generally acceptable, I'd append that to the above finding. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. While the use of humor to deescalate tensions is normally an admirable effort (even when it fails...), altering encyclopedic content to do so is not appropriate. Jclemens ( talk) 00:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   Striking the erroneous part of my comment, brought to my attention on the talk page. Jclemens ( talk) 04:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

4. There is a difference between fighting censorship and attempting to deliberately offend merely for the sake of offending, and this was clearly the latter. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Yep (with tweak to diff format),   Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. I note particularly this revert, which appeared to have support as a compromise solution, and perpetuated the edit warring despite what appeared to be something close to agreement. Risker ( talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. Reluctant support. FormerIP appears to be a good-faith, knowledgeable editor who behaved badly in some isolated instances. If I'd been drafting the decision I might not have included this finding in this form, but there's enough here that I don't think I can actually oppose it. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Hans Adler (conduct)

3) Hans Adler ( talk · contribs) has been unprofessional in some of his participation in this dispute. ( [6] [7])

Support:

1. Proposed. Two diffs and no more, but I think they are worrying enough to warrant a conduct finding in our decision. AGK [•] 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Sufficient for the finding that's been proposed. Jclemens ( talk) 04:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. True as stated, and problematic. Courcelles 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. hmmm, no. I agree some candour but not enough for a finding. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   I don't think that "unless your brain is functioning in a seriously unusual way (such as autism, to give a concrete example) or you come from a weird culture with seriously twisted ethics" can be reasonably considered even a borderline-unacceptable comment. Due to the egregious nature of Hans' comment in that diff, I think a finding and admonishment is required in our decision. AGK [•] 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   We have editors contributing despite mental illness and developmental delays. While it is reality to acknowledge that editors with e.g. autism may be unable to grasp others' viewpoints as easily as others, it is also not appropriate to insult those editors by comparing one's ideological opponents with them. Jclemens ( talk) 04:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   I can see growing exasperation and some comments which should have been more tempered, but given who is arguing on the page and how, I don't see the comments as hugely egregious. Note the conditional modifiers in the second diff, though I agree throwing a mention of autism was not a good idea. In some ways this is why we have a bunch of arbs, as some of us have different standards. Put it this way, I'd rather discuss something with candour with an opponent and wear some comments than shut them down crying incivility. There is a point and message to Hans' posts, not just some throwaway insult. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

2. Per Cas. The imagery is unfortunate but the remarks are nevertheless borderline (unless there are more in the same vein),   Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Not sufficiently serious for a finding. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. While I don't think this reaches the level of a finding, I would urge Hans to give serious consideration to using a more diplomatic tone. This is pretty borderline. Risker ( talk) 01:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. I find the second diff, which is a gross personal attack, to be significantly more problematic than the first. I'll oppose per Risker and Roger Davies, but an editor with Hans Adler's obvious knowledgeability and maturity can make his points—as he almost always does—in another fashion. Will reconsider my vote if additional problematic comments are identified, but per others above I don't see a pattern here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. per Risker. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Ludwigs2 (conduct)

4) Ludwigs2's participation in this dispute has been seriously disruptive, especially with respect to his interaction with the other disputants. ( [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]).

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Agree with Cas that there's more to be said about the TL;DR aspects of his conduct, but it's not enough to delay my support for this finding. Jclemens ( talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 02:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Yes, having just looked over at the evidence page. I think the finding is made stronger by reference to violation of Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground but not essential. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. And, per Cas's comments below,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. With some of the above caveats. Courcelles 19:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Ludwigs2 makes some good points; however, he severely dilutes his effectiveness by battleground behaviour. Risker ( talk) 02:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. Largely per Risker. I don't agree that every one of the diffs cited above is problematic, and I accept that Ludwigs2's participation in these discussion was intended in good faith. I've also carefully considered Ludwigs2's comments on the talkpage. I sympathize to some extent with the frustration he feels about discussions on Wikipedia from time to time, but there does come a time when an obvious consensus against one's position means that it is time to move on to another issue. Consensus can change, but that doesn't mean that one should push to reopen the consensus on the same issue day after day. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I can't see anything wrong with the first diff (unless I am missing something obvious?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

This finding needs something to illustrate the volume of replies or talkpage flooding or something. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Ludwigs2's conduct elsewhere on wikipedia

4.1) Ludwigs2's conduct elsewhere on Wikipedia has been problematic. In a May 2011 arbitration case, Ludwigs2 was cautioned; in October 2011, he was topic-banned from all Astrology articles; and in September 2011, he was asked to reconsider his comments to other editors in discussion about the Pregnancy article.

Support:

1. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 14:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Explains why a siteban is on the table.. Courcelles 19:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Made some prose changes and fixed a link. AGK [•] 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Repeated instances of pressing his arguments too far. Risker ( talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Per Risker and per my comment on 4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
11. Per Risker,   Roger Davies ^talk 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

This is included to aid arbitrators in reviewing conduct to determine whether a siteban is warranted. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Tarc (conduct)

5) Tarc's participation in the dispute concerning the Muhammad article has been disruptive. Although he has been sensible in his interpretation of policy [15], Tarc has also cast aspersions about other editors' motives and behaviour during content discussion [16] [17], been confrontational and uncivil [18] [19], adopted a battlefield mentality [20], [21], [22], and interacted with his colleagues with an unprofessional attitude [23].

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

     Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

3. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. I don't agree that the first diff shows Tarc in a particularly positive light; however, on the balance of diffs, there are enough problems here to be worthy of a finding. Risker ( talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. I'm not in full agreement with all the diffs, per some of the comments above and below, nor am I sure I would have included the finding in the decision if I'd drafted it or written it in this way. Tarc, like everyone mentioned in this decision, strikes me as a good-faith, knowledgeable editor, but it's difficult to avoid the conclusion it would be good if he sanded down a few of his rough edges. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The sentence about sensible interpretation of policy isnt justified by that diff. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Per John. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
3. I prefer the alternsative too,   Roger Davies ^talk 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. In favour of 5.1 Courcelles 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Recused with respect to Tarc. Jclemens ( talk) 23:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Not sure that first "Although he has been sensible in his interpretation of policy" should really be here. Courcelles 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Do you think so as a matter of principle, or because it is an incorrect statement in the specific case of Tarc? AGK [•] 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm unconvinced the diff provided is praiseworthy. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Yep, Phil's opinion is mine as well. Courcelles 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Tarc (conduct)

5.1) Tarc's participation in the dispute concerning the Muhammad article has been disruptive. Tarc has cast aspersions about other editors' motives and behaviour during content discussion [24] [25], been confrontational and uncivil [26] [27], adopted a battlefield mentality [28], [29], [30], and interacted with his colleagues with an unprofessional attitude [31].

Support:

1. Copied from 5, without the sentence "..has been sensible.." John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
2. first choice Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
5. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Still recused with respect to Tarc. Jclemens ( talk) 23:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community asked to decide issue of Muhammad images

1) The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.

Support:

1. Proposed, in line with how we have decided some similar disputes. AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   Jclemens ( talk) 23:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

2. Remains first choice for me in the first instance Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Not sure on the exact mechanics about appending the results to this case, but we clearly need a resolution that for a significant period is unimpeachable to keep this form being a constant argument. Courcelles 20:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 1.1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Per my comments on 1.2. Jclemens ( talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. I have the same concerns about this remedy as I do for the other options. Risker ( talk) 21:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 1.1 and 1.2,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

In what sense is this discussion going to be "definitive"? There is no provision (as there was in past cases where we've taken this approach) for the results of the discussion to be binding for some set period of time. Indeed, it's not clear that such a provision would be feasible here; unlike article titles, which can remain static indefinitely, the placement of images in an article will arguably change if notionally unrelated edits are made which, for example, alter the surrounding section structure. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd think of something like "well-structured enough and having attracted broad enough input to show at least a working consensus that is unlikely to be immediately challenged or overturned" - something.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Along Cas' lines. Fostering a discussion that is unimpeachable in terms of its mechanics is much more likely to be challenged in the future legitimately. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I have no objection to appending something like "The determination about the result of the discussion will be made by three uninvolved, experienced editors, and this result will be binding for three years from the closure of this case." I believe we have adopted such an approach in the past, and it has worked very well.

I proposed an alternative in 1.1), and also added some material that could help prevent the very feasible problems that Kirill foresees. AGK [•] 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Community discussion (with binding provision)

If this proposal passes, for clarity's sake it should use the same section header as proposal 1) does.

1.1) The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision.

In order to account for the fluidity of Wikipedia articles and for future changes to the structure or length of the Muhammad article, the Committee advises that the discussion focus on:

1. Categorising the images into groups of essential, important, and unessential images. Respectively, these groups will be of files that: may not be deleted from the page or moved to a separate section; files that can be deleted if the length of the article decreases significantly, but that should not be moved to another section; and files that can be deleted or moved if the article changes such that their previous position becomes untenable;
2. Creating an acceptable list of reserve images that can be used at any point in the article, should its length increase significantly, or alternatively agreeing that no other images be added to the article.

The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the closure of this case.

Support:

1. Proposed with amendments to make the result binding, and some guidance on issues that may reduce the usefulness of the result due to the natural fluidity of Wikipedia articles. The result of the discussion will be appended to this case within two months of the publication of this decision. AGK [•] 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. I think this is a pragmatic way forward, and combines WMF policy with dispute resolution. I think the veer into content here could be ok, but can understand the rationale of the opposers too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. I can just about live with this,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I'm concerned this is going too far in the direction of deciding content. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Per my comments on 1.2. Jclemens ( talk) 15:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. This would essentially lock the article into a specific version once the "discussion" is complete, removing the opportunity for improvement or expansion. I do agree that image selection is very important in this article, perhaps more so than the average article. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Three years is too long. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Of specific importance is the issues about different types of images. Dispute about calligraphy/veiled/direct depictions, and whether they belong in the lede or later in the article (or anywhere at all), have been especially troublesome, hence the advice about the content of the discussion. Long-term decisions about what types of images, and where they should be used, must be made. AGK [•] 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Before I support this, let me ask: How clear is it that there are serious and ongoing disputes, that won't be ameliorated by some of the other remedies adopted in this decision? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

We have before us a protracted content dispute, which cannot be solved by regulating conduct alone. Muhammad could be depicted using countless different configurations of images, which suggests to me that a definitive decision is needed. By a stroke of ill-fortune, the disputants are divided equally between factions, and to compound the problem a broader discussion among the community about the policy of "Wikipedia is not censored" did not result in a resolution to the specific dispute. The only solution I see is to defer the decision to the wider community, because the alternatives - to decide this ourselves, or to leave the parties to try to form a consensus - are not acceptable. If by "other remedies" you refer to the conduct findings, my view is that they will make discussion somewhat easier, but will probably not result in a resolution. AGK [•] 22:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Community discussion

1.2) The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision.

The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the closure of this case.

Support:

1. Prefer this version. PhilKnight ( talk) 04:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice; I am concerned that without more explicit instructions from us, the closure will not be sufficiently robust to withstand three years of scrutiny. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 04:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Distant support. AGK [•] 00:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Better than nothing, though I share Kirill's concerns. Courcelles 01:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice behind 1, not sure the three year clamp is needed rightaway. Not fussed about the "open mind", which I see as redundant as we should all be editing here with an open mind anyway. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
7. I can live with this too. If it needs any fine tuning that can be done by way of amendment/clarification,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I cannot see mandating an open mind as appropriate. For those who are already trying to hold the line against a pressure group intent on influencing encyclopedic content, that is an insult. By all means, those who want to make our content align with an outside pressure group's wishes should have an open mind, but I'm not so naive as to think that will actually happen, especially in light of the specious arguments brought forward to justify such inappropriate modifications by some parties to this case. Jclemens ( talk) 15:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. I believe that discussions about images in this article (and related articles) will continue to occur on a regular basis, whether or not one is held now. I believe discretionary sanctions are the best we can offer here, given that new editors will continue to come to the article and make recommendations. I would hope, however, that discretionary sanctions will be applied equally to editors whose response is essentially "we already talked about it and made a decision", rather than considering new ideas. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Three years is too long. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

See my comment on 1.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 topic-banned

2.1) Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.

Support:

1. Proposed. My first choice is to enact a topic ban and restriction - 2.1) and 2.2) - over the siteban in 3). AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. weak, weak secondary support, such that this is a support IFF my support would not result in remedy 3 failing AND would result in 2.1 passing vs. no remedy passing. Jclemens ( talk) 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. I will support this, although the restriction probably could be narrowed to discussions concerning the use of images of or related to Muhammad, and I would prefer to have some sort of time limit. If the problem were to expand from there, the discretionary sanctions we are adopting below could be applied. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. This would work for me. First choice over a full ban. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer just a 1 year ban. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 3. Courcelles 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Neither fowl nor fish. He can't comment but he can edit?   Roger Davies ^talk 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. per Roger. I would prefer a better topic-ban, but its too late to add this now. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Ludwigs2 restricted

2.2) Ludwigs2 may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator in the event that his participation to any article-space discussion or contributions to any article-space topic area is disruptive.

Support:

1. Proposed. My first choice is to enact a topic ban and restriction - 2.1) and 2.2) - over the siteban in 3). AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. If the alternative is banning, this is far better. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I don't believe there's any evidence that Ludwigs2 is generally disruptive outside this particular topic area. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Doesn't seem necessary as an addition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. 3 is sufficient. Courcelles 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. I've thought about this for a while, and think that some sort of editor probation is appropriate, I don't think that a) there's enough structure here for the process to work effectively, and b) that this would be necessary or optimum in light of the other passing sanctions. Jclemens ( talk) 04:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Per some of the other opposes. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Per Jclemens. If there was more structure to this, I would support. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Sorry, no. Overbroad and overvague,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

So is this a per-editor discretionary sanction? This seems a bit reminiscent of the public policy restriction that I advocated on the Abortion workshop... that I could never really find a way to make work the way I wanted. For example, there's no notification requirement here, which is generally a part of any expansive sanction like this. Not sure if this is appropriate or not--will consider further. Jclemens ( talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

This is actually a revival of the (very old) "editor probation" remedy, which was phased out long before discretionary sanctions were invented. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

In essence, yes, though I think we must avoid equating old remedies with bad remedies. I prefer such restrictions to sitebans, in a display of (probably naive) leniency. The history of Ludwigs2 would suggest that he is disruptive, outside of the Muhammad topic: he was admonished in May (I may have made the month up) 2011, and he was topic-banned in September-October 2011. AGK [•] 12:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Ludwigs2 banned

3) Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1. Proposed for consideration, but this would be my second choice. AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Conduct issues generalised enough to suggest problems will recur elsewhere. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Only choice. The problems are wide-spread and likely to continue. Courcelles 20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Yes, it probably has come down to this though I'd consider a comprehensive topic ban instead if one were proposed,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Excessive at this time. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer topic ban only. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
3. per NYB & Risker. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Purely as a point or order, I don't see this and 2.1 as alternatives. It would be possible to pass both, and have 2.1 continue after this remedy expired in 2013. Whether we are considering them as alternatives to each other is another matter, but the wording of each proposal (one time-limited, one not) means they can be read plausibly as complements, rather than alternatives. Courcelles 03:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Is it worth noting editing problems in other areas outside Mohammed images for this to be an option? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Tarc topic-banned

4) Tarc is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. needs a break. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. First choice to 4.1. I believe that the user's contributions to the dispute merit this remedy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. I think a break is needed here. Courcelles 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 4.1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 4.1. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. I might support as second choice if the restriction were limited to discussions of images of or relating to Muhammad and if a time limit were provided. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 4.1. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
5. I'd probably support this if it were a standard topic ban,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
6. per Roger. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Recused with respect to Tarc. Jclemens ( talk) 23:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Tarc admonished

4.1) Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. not exclusive of 4 above. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Second preference, but as Cas notes they can also be considered concurrent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice, but they're hardly exclusive remedies. Courcelles 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Okay,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I regret to say that Tarc's conduct warrants more than an admonishment, though his indication on the PD talk page that he would react constructively to an admonishment is certainly heartening. AGK [•] 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Recused with respect to Tarc. Jclemens ( talk) 04:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments:

FormerIP admonished

5) FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 00:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I think FormerIP has already gotten the message. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Don't think this is required at this time. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Hans Adler admonished

6) Hans Adler is admonished to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Jclemens ( talk) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I'd go with a "reminded" maybe but "admonished" is too strong for mine. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Not serious enough for a remedy. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Per my comment on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Too severe, IMO. Courcelles 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Per my comments at the finding of fact. Risker ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 6.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
7. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Hans Adler reminded

6.1) Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.

Support:

1. Proposed per comments above. Jclemens ( talk) 21:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Can live with this. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Like Phil, but I'm falling on the other side of the line on this one. Courcelles 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

   This'll do,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Weak oppose. Don't consider this to be entirely necessary, but don't object strongly either. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Per PhilKnight. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Per PhilKnight. Risker ( talk) 06:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Per PhilKnight,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Copyedited from admonished to reminded, because I'm sure this isn't supposed to read identically to 6. Courcelles 23:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Discretionary sanctions

8) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles that have as their primary subject (interpreted broadly) the historical figure Muhammad. As an arbitration enforcement action, any uninvolved administrator may place an editor under restriction or sanction for disruptive editing on any affected page, after an initial caution. For the purposes of enforcement, all editors who are named as parties to this case are considered to have already been cautioned, and an initial warning is not a precondition to restricting the parties to this case.

Support:

Proposed. AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Switching to support the improved alternative. AGK [•] 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Reconsidered, now supporting 8.1. Jclemens ( talk) 04:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 8.1. As NuclearWarfare mentions on the talk page, the point of standardizing discretionary sanctions is lost of additional provisions are attached in individual cases. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. complex, prefer 8.1 Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 8.1. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 8.1. AGK [•] 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Goes against the entire point of standardizing these things. Courcelles 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. In favor of 8.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Prefer 8.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions

8.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 04:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. First choice, although should be 'pages', not 'articles'. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Much clearer. AGK [•] 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Second choice. AGK [•] 11:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 04:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (Only choice. Risker ( talk) 06:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I prefer 8.2, but I can live with this. AGK [•] 23:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Any objections to changing 'articles' to 'pages'? PhilKnight ( talk) 18:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I've made the change. If anyone disagrees, then just revert. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Works for me. AGK [•] 23:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Discretionary sanctions

8.2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles that have Muhammad as their primary subject, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Proposed. I knew it was deliberate that I didn't write in the 'boilerplate' discretionary sanctions remedy in the first place, and a thread on the talk page has reminded me. Authorising these sanctions for all articles relating to Muhammad means we will be placing thousands of articles about Islam under discretionary sanctions, which is a flagrant over-reaction. I therefore cannot support 8.1), but as a compromise between the more specific original proposal and the simplified remedy in 8.1), I propose this alternative. The modifier of as their primary subject is critical. AGK [•] 11:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Experience from other areas subject to discretionary sanctions is that sometimes the disputing parties argue across a broad spectrum of related articles, so I'd prefer to use the 'broadly construed' language. Similar to 8.1, I think we should stipulate 'pages' instead of 'articles'. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. I think this is a better fit, so first choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I could live with this, but I don't want to be drawing things too narrowly, and prefer 8.1 in its place. Jclemens ( talk) 15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. The benefit of 8.1 is it allows almost no wiki-lawyering over scope, and this one does. "Primary subject" would become a very vague term. However, I would NOT say that merely being about Islam makes an article fall under 8.1 Courcelles 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. I see no real harm in authorizing discretionary sanctions for a somewhat broader area. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. I might switch to support if this was "pages" not "articles" but as it is it's too narrowly drawn,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

General caution to parties

9) The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Obviously, the last sentence is dependent on remedy 8 discretionary sanctions passing, but that's probable. Jclemens ( talk) 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

   CE now that we have 8.1 on the table as well. Jclemens ( talk) 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply

3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 21:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
10. Yes, as I suspect thst this one will be back to us in one form or another in due course,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. If any topic bans pass, the discretionary sanctions contain their own enforcement provision, but the proposed topic bans for Ludwigs2 and Tarc do not. Courcelles 21:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 03:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
3. AGK [•] 23:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
4. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
5. If a restriction or ban passes. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
6. Per Kirill. Risker ( talk) 04:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Per Kirill. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General

Notes from drafting arbitrator:

1. Jclemens proposed an additional principle during the internal drafting phase. I've left him to post that proposal here, if he still wishes it to be included for consideration.

   Done. Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

2. I excluded the "Substandard participation in case" finding from the draft, because I'm not sure it really helps to resolve this dispute. We would probably also have to include it in every decision we make in future, because a significant volume of unhelpful discussion is ubiquitous in our workshops.

AGK [•] 22:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 5.1, 6.2, 7.1, 8, 9

Passing findings: 1.1, 2, 4, ^[1] 4.1, ^[1] 5

Passing remedies: ^[2] 1.2, 2.1, 3, 4.1, 5, 8.1, 9

Passing enforcement provisions: 1

Proposals which do not pass

Failing principles: 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 10

Failing findings: 1, ^[3] 1.2, 3, 5.1

Failing remedies: 1, 1.1, 2.2, 4, 6, 6.1, 8, 8.2

Failing enforcement provisions: None

Last updated: NW ( Talk) 01:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you, NuclearWarfare. I agree with your assessments in notes 1-3. AGK [•] 22:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Major change since last update: None of the Remedy #1 options are passing anymore. NW ( Talk) 22:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I hope this isn't wrong since I am not assigned to this case, but I updated the listing above because remedy 1.2 is now passing -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

That's fine. In the future though, when do you so, could you completely update the full implementation notes. It's no big deal, because I had actually planned on doing that now (and just did), but just something to keep in mind for the future. NW ( Talk) 01:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• I have reviewed the implementation notes and believe they are accurate. Mlpearc ( powwow) 04:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. I'm done here. Move to close. Courcelles 01:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
3. What's going to pass has apparently done so. That doesn't include much of my preferred language, but neither does it include some language that I would strongly oppose, either. Jclemens ( talk) 05:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply
4. Support closing now that my concerns have been addressed. Risker ( talk) 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Moving to support as at least one of the three variations on Remedy #1 is now passing. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
6. As Phil. AGK [•] 21:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
8. Gratuitous pile-on,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose

I've asked Jclemens and AGK to review their votes for Remedy #1, as it's unclear to me what exactly their choices are there. As it makes a difference in whether or not the remedy passes, I'll oppose closing until they've had a chance to take a look. Risker ( talk) 06:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Moving to close now that my concerns are addressed. Risker ( talk) 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Prefer to wait until all of the active arbs have voted on Remedy #1. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

1. The decision in its present form is of little use. AGK [•] 23:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments