[WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

[Raphael Wegmann]

I hope you don't mind, that I've put it back on-list.

Michelle wrote:
> 
> Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> 
>> Yeah sure. "Disruption" is the loophole for administrators,
>> who can't find any other policy, which backs their action.
>>  
>>
> Or maybe its so we don't have to make a ridiculously long all inclusive 
> list?
> Or perhaps so we don't have to deal with people trying to use one thing 
> not being on the list, or not being properly worded as a loophole to 
> scream they've been blocked unfairly?

Have you ever thought about what wording would be necessary to
include my case?

> Maybe its because we expect people to use common sense, and rules 
> lawyering doesn't get you anywhere?
> 
>> Can you elaborate in which way the two times I've moved
>> the cartoons behind a link in five days, disrupted the normal
>> functioning of Wikipedia to warrant a 7 day block?
>>  
>>
> You were deliberately disrupting and article and the consensus derived 
> for the material therein.  Even after people tried to speak with you 
> about it, you blindly followed your opinion.

I've never "blindly followed my opinion". Instead I've been
responsive to all discussions and (contrary to some free speech
extremist admins) clearly showed my willingness to make compromises.
Please take a look at:
[[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display]]

> The fact that you still refuse to see that anything in your behavior 
> might have been contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia community and 
> goals further supports the blocks necessity.

In my humble opinion the stubborness of administrators lead to many
blocks of editors, who fell victim to the J-P cartoon display
dispute. I wonder how anything like that should be in the spirit of
the Wikipedia community? Is this how the "community" works? Blocking
editors, whom administrators disagree with, so the rest can write
their single-sided view on the cartoon controversy(!)?

It is truely tragicomic, that the very same free speech extremists,
who blocked those editors for removing the cartoons, removed an
article, where I have documented those cases, and threatend me
with an indefinite block, should I recreate that article in any
fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims

>> I wonder, whether you are familiar with the [[Wikipedia:No binding
>> decisions]] policy. There is no reason why a 3 month old poll,
>> which gets ignored by about 10 editors/week (if the article is not
>> protected as it seems to be necessary most of the time), should
>> be regarded as binding.
>>  
>>
> Quite.  The rule you cite is about using common sense; something decided 
> at one time won't always necessarily be the best thing for the project.
> Just because a small group of vocal people comes along and tries to 
> circumvent a consensus also doesn't mean it suddenly gets tossed out.
> You could always hold another poll or discussion to see if consensus has 
> changed, but given the overwhelming consensus the first time and the 
> reactions since, I highly doubt that is the case.

I wonder who ever got the idea to hold a poll about a MINORITY ISSUE.
Minorities of any society will never ever be protected by any voting.
It's the fundamental rules ("constitution"), which should protect
them from advocacy of religious hatred or incitement to hostility.
Fortunately Wikipedia has such a "constitution":

WP:NPA
"Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
[...]
"Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member
of a purported cult."

Wikiquette
"Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what
would happen if they insulted your religion."

Blocking policy
"*Inserting* material that may be defamatory" is considered disruption 
and may result in a block

>> "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots.
>> A consensus of idiots does not override good sense.
>> Wikipedia is not a democracy." (Jimbo Wales)
>>
>> I wouldn't use those words btw, but I agree with them "in spirit".
>>  
> Ah, and I would have used precisely the same quote to define my position.
> 

I wonder, how you manage to embrace a "consensus of idiots"
in your position.

-- 
Raphael