User:Oberst/RfAR Rafael1 amicus

Comment by David Oberst
While I have not been directly involved with Raphael1, I have followed many of the events with interest, and would like to encourage the Arbitration Committee to accept this case. If I could suggest some points that would be useful to address if the case is accepted, most of which relate to Raphael1's RFC against User:Cyde in regards to admin activity on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Phrased as assertions, they would include:


 * That a consensus clearly was formed to keep the cartoon images in the article. The polls conducted in the article's Talk area are not the only basis for determining a consensus was achieved, and do not invalidate the consensus.  This is the key point for all that has followed, as Raphael1 appears to reject the notion that a consensus was formed, or reject it as illegitimate due to the methods used in forming it.  Frankly, given the amount of support for keeping the image, it would be hard to imagine how to determine that a significant consensus had formed in any controversial situation if it can't be stated that one formed here.  It was this aspect of the RFC that originally caught my attention.
 * That repeated removal of the cartoons, as opposed to further discussion on the Talk page, was not a valid means of "testing" or disproving a recently achieved consensus.
 * That repeated removals of such a discrete and central item (the cartoons) that has achieved such a consensus can be considered disruptive and (in some contexts) vandalism.
 * That reverting of cartoon removal (after a consensus had formed), referring to some of the removals as "vandalism", and blocking accounts (especially anonymous IPs) that repeatedly removed the images was within the scope of admin discretion.
 * Such action by admins is categorically not "persecution of Muslims", the blocked users are not "victims", Raphael1's original Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims page was in violation of WP:NPA and/or disruptive to Wikipedia's functioning, and its deletion was appropriate.
 * That Raphael1's RFC produced a clear consensus (see especially the "Outside view by JzG") that the admin blocks in question were not the "misuse of power" claimed.
 * The "milder" re-creation at User:Raphael1/Consequences of enforcing results of polls in February with the "blacked out" list of admins is thus misleading, and at the least an inappropriate use of user space.

David Oberst 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)