Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Response to Cyde Weys - "Administrators are allowed to block for vandalism"

Raphael isn't a vandal. Disruptive, yes. Vandal, no. There is a difference, and it is possible to be disruptive to the point of meriting blocks without being a vandal. From the evidence I've seen so far his actions haven't violated any of the definitions in WP:-(. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's only one words that comes to mind that describes someone repeatedly and disruptively hiding the exact same image that most people think it is best to display – and that word is vandalism. And if you're going to define vandal as "one who commits vandalism", then yes, Raphael1 is a vandal. He's not solely a vandal, as he does do other stuff that may legitimately be called content disputes, but when it comes to the display of the image, that was pure vandalism. --Cyde↔Weys 17:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, that's a bad way think of vandalism. We define vandalism very narrowly for a reason. Attempts to make the encylopedia better, "no matter how misguided", are not vandalism. Calling someone's edits vandalism is equivalent to admitting that you've given up on assuming good faith. As long as he believes he's making the encyclopedia better, it's not vandalism. If doing something in the face of opposition constituted vandalism, then lots of us would be vandals, and you'd be one of the first. I'm so completely convinced of Raphael1's good faith, that I cannot agree with a characterization of him as a vandal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)