On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Even though you repeat your "disruption"
accusation five times in your
EMail, I'm still not convinced of being disruptive. By contrast I
consider the blocking of editors for having a different POV very
Listen, Raphael. I don't really know anything about you. To my
knowledge, I have never edited the cartoon controversy page. I have
however followed it a tiny bit. All I know is that there is a strong
community consensus to include the images in the article. Not behind a
link, not "below the fold", so to speak.
I think that this article is a controversial one makes it all the more
important to treat vandalism as disruption. Vandalism in this case
meaning removing the images. I know you probably won't listen to me,
and I imagine you have been told this before, but I feel the need to
speak *my* mind about it.
Removing the image is considered vandalism. On a high-edit article
like this, vandalism is considered by many more disruptive than on
other articles. If you would like to try and sway the community, you
should be using the talk page to try and gain consensus. Removing the
image without discussion leads nowhere. Continued removal amounts to
disruption. Editors may be blocked for disruption.
It is not a matter of blocking someone for their POV. It is a matter
of blocking them for their actions. We have many great Muslim editors
who disagree with the inclusion of the images, yet don't remove them.
Why? Because they know doing so is vandalism and repeated removal is
disruption. They understand that until consensus shows that they
should be removed, that they should stay.
I know I am repeating myself here, but I think it needs to be
repeated. I encourage you, Raphael, to keep working to change the
community's consensus. However, do so without being a vandal or a
disruption. Remain civil. Compromise. Thank you for your time, my