Taking a step back and trying to analyze this from an "Outside" perspective is difficult. You haven't provided a link to the user in questions profile, which already makes more work for anyone looking-in. Then, I'd have to rely on soft-translations to even know what they've said. These aren't impossible hurdles, but they mean more work on the accuser's (you) part.

Something that I've picked up on over the years is that two wrongs do not make a right. So, if Ratimov (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2627711) is being given negative trust for plagiarizing when they aren't actually plagiarizing then we as a community should take action to remove those users wrongfully leaving him trust. Now, I'm not saying this is the case, but what I am saying is that regardless of the context - the retaliatory negative trust is never helpful in resolving the situation. If Ratimov was wrongly tagged, the retaliatory trust makes them look childish. If they are correctly tagged, then it's clear they won't learn from their mistakes.

If you are truly bothered by him being paid in a signature campaign, then seemingly the best route would be to contact the campaign manager and see if they agree with you about it.