[Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> 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.