If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks don't agree. Fred On May 27, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote: > Hello, > > 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. > > I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever > I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where > I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been > blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of > some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]] > > One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted > that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard > and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that > article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on > WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to > file a Deletion review > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? > title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=55213632#User:Raphael1.2FPersecu > tion_of_Muslims > > which itself got removed after administrators commented > "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing > this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it. > It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of > administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree > with. > > [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]] > Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May > > [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]] > block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs > where I allegedly personally attacked him. > > Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor > of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider > the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits. > > best regards > -- > Raphael

Raphael, if the images affect you so much, why not use monobook to hide that image?

If people feel unable to read or contribute to a project that has things that don't agree with the theology of their own personal religion, they're not suitable for working on ANY secular project.

Having things critical of religion on Wikipedia is not the same as " "foreign" faiths or cultures aren't welcome" at all.

If people simply cannot cope and have a temper tantrum when they see anything in their religion criticised (ala. the Mohammed cartoons), maybe they should set up a strictly religious Wiki where the thin-skinned and reactionary can "safely" contribute.

On 5/30/06, Raphael Wegmann &lt;raphael(a)psi.co.at&gt; wrote: <snip> You say "critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia", then immediately afterwards say those people that remove it should not be called vandals. Removal of appropriate material is considered vandalism, and repeatedly doing so may result in a block. Do you not think it should be so? I don't really want to get into *this* specific debate, I was just a little confused about what you wrote. Thanks.

What do you mean by "even when you are right"? Aren't you interested to find out, whether I am right? If I am right, letting those admins go on blocking editors would be very bad for Wikipedia as it would shift the bias even more. To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is "purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV" (which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays). -- Raphael Fred Bauder wrote: > If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are > right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks > don't agree. > > Fred

Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech. For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.

IANAL, but I don't think that this law would prevent me from writing *about* Holocaust denial, as long as it is clear, that I don't deny the Holocaust myself. The same should IMHO apply to the J-P cartoon article: There's no problem to write *about* insulting cartoons and the controversy following it, as long as we distance ourself from the publishing of the cartoons by i.e. moving them one click away instead of re-publishing them as we do right now.

Raphael Wegmann wrote: Indeed the law doesn't prevent us from doing so, which is why it isn't a problem for Wikipedia (whether it's a good law or not is another matter, but one that doesn't affect us). But your suggestion of not publishing the J-P cartoons isn't analogous to what we do with holocaust denial at all. Our articles *do* republish statements, cartoons, posters, and other material denying that the Holocaust occurred, as part of a general encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The article would be quite a bit worse if we were prohibited from republishing any material that could be considered Holocaust-denying, and had to just talk about it without showing any examples. I would say the same goes of the J-P cartoons.

On May 29, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote: Wait a sec. We are talking about putting the cartoons in an article *on the J-P cartoons*, right? AFAIK, no-one is suggesting the cartoons be included in the [[Islam]] article, or even [[2005 Islamic events]] (if we have such an article). So, you think it's utterly wrong to include the cartoons in an article * devoted solely to them *, but it would be fine to include them in an article on a general subject of which they are an (arguable) example? Does this make any sense to anyone else?

On May 30, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote: Raphael, The blocks may not have been against the editor(s) who felt insulted, but against the editors that disrupted the editing process by editwarring, violating the 3RR rule, etc. Was not this the case?

Admins that block a users for 24 hrs without placing warning notices (minimum one, better three, have done so outside of the blocking policy.

You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be shown.

Fred Bauder wrote: It's hardly the case that pictures insulting to Muslims are being singled out for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if anyone still remembers, but there was a bit of an uproar in the United States a few years ago about anti-Christian artwork, and we have a photo of the piece that triggered that uproar included in the article, [[Piss Christ]].

No, they won't be, creating an image of Mohammed is generally prohibited and sacrilegious. Fred On May 28, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks don't agree.

On May 27, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote: Wikipedia is not a place to post lengthy tracts denouncing Wikipedia and its administrators. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry this didn't seem obvious to you when you started, but it's not exactly prudent to go around attacking the people you're supposed to work with.

Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed) consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist points of view.

Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed) consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist points of view. Fred On May 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, The Cunctator wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed) consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist points of view. Fred On May 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, The Cunctator wrote:

G'day Raphael, You were not being a legitimate critic. You were building a hit list.

This is inappropriate.