On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far > afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here > sometimes. From my read of the discussions with that editor, as well > as the incident discussion you linked, he is being blocked not for the > deletion nominations themselves, but for making them disruptively, > both by targeting editors he disagrees with and by being abusive > during the process. As a parallel on Wikipedia, if someone has a > disagreement with another editor, and proceeds to nominate 10 of their > articles for deletion with the deletion rationale "Delete this crap by > that moron", that person could be sanctioned even if all 10 articles > really -do- need to be deleted. I don't know if that's really the > case, nor do I feel like reviewing his contributions in enough detail > to find out, but the block discussion is absolutely -not- talking > about what you said it was. Notability is different from copyright. Copyright is fundamental. When editors in Wikipedia have pointed out multiple copyright violations or plagiarisms by administrators (we have had examples, up to and including arbitrators), they have not been subject to threats, blocks and bans. I don't think this sort of thing would fly in the English Wikipedia – not with copyright violations. Non-notable articles, perhaps, especially if the nomination were accompanied by abuse. But I am honestly not aware of Pieter ever having nominated a file with the reasoning "Delete this crap by that moron". These are your words. And I *am* aware of admins continuously picking on him and ganging up on him. This is not the first time this situation has arisen. If a file is a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
