On 27 May 2006 at 19:42, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
Vandalism isn't any less vandalism because it is motivated by religion.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 May 2006 at 19:42, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely removed an insult on their religious belief.
Vandalism isn't any less vandalism because it is motivated by religion.
I think calling it "vandalism" is a bit of question-begging. There's a legitimate argument over what precisely Wikipedia should display. In most cases, we display things regardless of whether they offend people, although in some cases we don't out of respect for good taste (for example, the photograph of human feces on [[human feces]] was removed by consensus).
Now if it's a minority opinion and the person keeps insisting on it then they can be banned for some other reason, but I don't think it's literal "vandalism".
-Mark