Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
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.
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
Removing the image is considered vandalism. On a
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.
Because they know, that they'll be blocked for it.
Because they know doing so is vandalism and repeated
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
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".