User talk:ALM scientist/arbitration Muhammad

WilyD help

What kind of help are you looking for here? WilyD 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go step by step.

Try to have all the point we wish to mention in the arbitration.
Try to reference all those point from multiple sources or edit summaries.

Right now I wish to have help with first point. --- ALM 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD the edit war was there always. But the page is not get protected because of picture dispute since I am here. That is from March 2006. I have my self had deleted that single picture that used to be on Muhammad page but like other people had accepted that consensus. Hence that was a stable version for long time with one picture in the page. --- ALM 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM, whenthe same topic is disputed again and again, this history is the history. What you're talking about is the current Edit Battle that forms only a small part of a much larger Edit War - context is important. WilyD 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not get locked since last one year hence there was no dispute. Few reverts here and there does not indicate a dispute. agreed? --- ALM 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is page locking the problem to be resolved? I was under the impression that we were trying to resolve an editing impasse. This looks to me like a conflict that's been simmering for a long time, not one that's only a month old - the same issue is being disputed that's been disputed for quite a while. If your only goal is having the page unlocked so long term low intensity eidt warring can begin, that's fine, but I think finding a solution that's acceptable to all serious editors who accept the principles of Wikipedia is a much better solution (I'm fairly sure there'll always be one off vandals or POV warriors who are uninterested in making a good article, as happens at all contraversial articles). Putting this dispute in it's full context seems to me to be a much better way to look at it - the first back and forth (which goes for a few edits anyhow) was just the result of my looking for some background on this. WilyD 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what netscott has to say: I agree that the transclusion should be lifted however it should only be done so after mediation or some sort of an established consensus on this. I would compare this to what happened on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article where after a super majority voiced the opinion that the cartoons needed to be displayed at the lead of the article any subsequent systematic removals were viewed as blockable disruption. I mention this because this is not the case on this article. There is no super majority and there is no established consensus (none that I am aware of at least) about displaying images of Muhammad here therefore good faith attempts to remove/change the images of Muhammad (even systematically) should not be viewed as disruption. The current status of how the images are being displayed stems (I believe) from the fact that the article was locked in an image displaying configuration for weeks and in a sense became a new norm. The reality is that the only truly consensus established norm ever was that there was only one image of Muhammad displayed at the bottom of the article. In the meantime I will do my best to work around a recognized MediaWiki bug and render the references in the transclusion functional. (→Netscott) 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC) --- ALM 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the change as you have suggested. --- ALM 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it's actually hard to see where this conflict "starts" independant of others - I find the page protected, then immeadiately semi-protected here while an apparent dispute around Maome is going on, for instance. WilyD 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It started around 4 months ago and I will find the histories. Right now concentrate on making right sequence and covering all the important points. In the second stage we will find histories and references.--- ALM 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a better approach will be to start from the point where mediation starts.--- ALM 17:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the edit warring has to go to before the start of mediation (after all, no edit warring would mean no mediation). When does Maome first appear? That image seems to correspond with a lot of the current tension (there's an older tension around a sketch by some European). WilyD 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right this time. The Maome start appearing around 4-5 months ago and the current dispute started. It is difficult to find the right edit histories without spending some time. I have to study now and will find right edit history after few days In-sha-Allah. regards. --- ALM 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image already appears to be the subject of a longtime dispute at the start of October [1] WilyD 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I suspect this edit is the source of the Maome image - it gets inserted with poor formatting that's then corrected, and I don't see it anywhere earlier. Maybe it is - I won't spend my whole life searching. Anyways, it seems to be the constant subject of edit warring and constant reverts from then out. WilyD 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WilyD for spending your time. I am happy with your help. Thanks :) --- ALM 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]