User talk:Argyriou/SirNicholas

I've placed all content I've deleted from the main page here, approximately in order. Please continue furhter discussion here, if necessary.

Lies

Lies is putting it rather strongly. There is indeed strong consensus that YouTube links are mostly inappropriate, since most of them have unclear copyright status. This restriction ion respect of copyright problems has been part of WP:EL for some time. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not "most of You Tube links," the issue is whether there is or has ever been an outright ban on You Tube links. (And the answer is no: 10% or more of You Tube links are fine, and disputed links must be discussed.) Nick was aware that there was no ban, and yet deleted links citing the EL guideline, which explicitly states there is no blanket You Tube ban. What can the clear discrepancy between his 1) knowledge that there is not blanket ban 2)his statements to editors that there is a blanket ban be called, other than lying?

Cindery 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Close against unanimous keep consensus [1]`
Closed delete even though significant information to contest deletion was brought up. [2]
Clear No Consensus (50/50 split) closed as delete [3]
Closed delete against consensus to keep. [4]
Closed delete, should have been a no consensus close. [5]
Closed delete, vote was 2:1 against deletion. [6]

Note: Added by User:Alkivar

Harassment of fellow administrators

Harassment of User:Alkivar: [7]

Note: added by User:Malber

Note that Alkivar is still using an image in his sig, in contravention of WP:SIG. We were asked to remove images from sigs due to server load concerns, and almost all of us who used images in sigs have subsequently done so. Harrassment also seems like a significant overstatement of the case here, unless there is evidence of sustained, personalised hostility. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of blocking policy

Punitive block on User:Malber: [8]

Note: added by User:Malber

Barrington YouTube Video

Legitimate dispute, resolved by unambiguously clarifying the copyright status of the video (which is what should have been done in the first place) Guy (Help!) 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: copyright was clarified on Nov 18th, when the copyright holder placed a note verifying the copyright and explicitly stating his permission--Nick returned to delete link again a month later. This particular link was 1) used repeatedly as an example of a legitimate link in lengthy You Tube discussions at EL and NOR 2) was the subject of talkpage discussion between Nick and I. Meaning: he was well aware both that it was a legitimate link, and that a great deal of discussion about it--involving him--had already taken place. Cindery 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]