For a very long time I've advocated making it
explicit that the only authorship credit we
should require downstream is "Wikipedia
contributors" to avoid any bothersome
bullying or complaints such as what
Maverick is engaging in right now.
What? I just mentioned as a small part of my argument
that deleting an article and then posting /exactly/
the same text under a different user name and /not/
stating who wrote that text is a violation of the
author requirement of the GNU FDL and thus opens us to
potential litigation from the person who is not being
credited. This person has already stated that he hates
"Jimbo and his friends" and has called for "Wikipeida
regime change in 2004." So how am I being a bully by
pointing out something that could be used by such a
person as a basis to harm Wikipedia?
But I'll try to believe that his actions
are merited by his good-intentioned but
unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on
behalf of 142 and not based on a goal of
censoring anything written by 142.
It is not a matter of me censoring anything. He has
already been hard banned so everything he writes is in
violation of that ban and should be removed from the
top edits of articles. Not doing so invalidates the
ban and implicitly gives permission to everyone that
the activity that the user was banned for is at worst
OK and at best not something we try to stop.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard