Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@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 disruptive.
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.
Yes, there have been polls in early February in which a strong supermajority made that decision.
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.
Yes, I am listening to you, but you fail to explain, why you consider the removal of a religious insult vandalism. I've already explained many times, why the (re)moval of the cartoons is *not* a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Instead, altering the display characteristics of the cartoons would indeed increase the quality of the article, because it would invite editors who feel insulted by the cartoons to add valuable information regarding their side on this controversy.
I'd like to add beforehand, that changes even if they'd be opposed by *everyone else*, do not constitute vandalism according to [[WP:VANDAL]].
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.
Firstly I have never been lazy to sway the community on the talk page and secondly I haven't moved the cartoons behind a link since April 29.
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, that they'll be blocked for it.
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.
Is that because Wikipedia is a democracy nowadays?
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 friend.
Thank you for your mail.
Please read the start of this thread again. I have not been blocked for vandalism or disruption. I have been blocked for allegedly personally attacking other editors, though the whole "evidence" is the title of an article I've created in my userspace called "Persecution of Muslims".