Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/oren0: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Yahel Guhan (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 134:
#::Your reply demonstrates my oppose reason exactly: "reward users who circumvent their bans by allowing their work to stay up" - Our readers could care less if a sentence was added by a "banned user." The point of a ban should be to prevent disruption, not to punish people. Common sense and the goal of improving content should always prevail. No, edit warring is not a copyvio, but in your scenario, editor 3 is not claiming authorship for editor 1's content. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</font> 04:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#:::As for copyvio, I guess a better way of saying what I mean is that the reinstating editor would be ''responsible for'' the edits rather than taking credit for them. As [[WP:BAN]] says: Editors can edit on behalf of banned editors if they "have independent reasons for making" the edits. If the edit is really so spectacular, another editor can vouch for it. [[User:Oren0|Oren0]] ([[User talk:Oren0|talk]]) 05:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Mr Z-man. User has lost sight of the spirit of the project in his quest to become an admin. One should not set out seeking adminship, but instead find that he/she needs it in order to better the encyclopedia. [[User:Juppiter|Juppiter]] ([[User talk:Juppiter|talk]]) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
=====Neutral=====
| |||