Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Djr xi 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Djr_xi

final (30/31/7) ending 00:34 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidacy restarted. See the previous voting here. At the time of closing this would have been bureaucrat discretion. Ordinarily we count votes until a bureaucrat closes. However at closing time after seven days of voting, we had a vote of (32,9,4) (or 10 opposes if you count the one one minute after closing) and then in the next two-and-a-half hours we doubled the opposes. The opposers are mostly substantial users but this is statistically disturbing. I am making no accusations and others may, if they choose, explore this anomoly. That's all I will say so as not to prejudice this candidacy one way or the other. I have preserved the candidate's opening statement and the questions and his answers. -- Cecropia 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Userboxes. However, I soon became disillusioned by the lack of justification for userboxes, and decided to explain my thoughts for myself on my user page.
Most recently, I have become engrossed with the Categorisation system, and have spent hours upon hours sorting out the web of categories that seem to have spawned out of control. It was in this process that my need for adminship became most apparent. Finally, reverting vandalism, which appears out of control on certain pages, is a main cause of my edits, and admin tools would (obviously) aid the combat of repetitive obscenities and linkspam. Deano (Talk) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Support

  1. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 08:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support great answers. ... 
    talk 08:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Support as per original request Robdurbar 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as per original request helohe (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Per original request DaGizzaChat © 10:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vote swing - I've changed my mind from my original vote. I'm concerned at the userboxes on his userpage that could be deleted as
    T+C) at 10:48 UTC (2006-02-23
    )
  7. Support - Looks like we have a lot in common! The important thing is what he does on the encyclopaedia, not his user page. Waggers 10:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strongest possible support in light of obvious attack campaign against a perfectly rational editor. --
    Aaron 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Strongest Possible Support I hope that this time the rfa can close at 7 days, per generally accepted standards, or we can get some generally accepted standards that are actually stuck to.
    afist 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Moral support, it must suck to not get adminned because of some people's petty war against userboxes.  Grue  14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --
    (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Support. Userboxes are substed, so I don't see a problem with them. Great work on Portal:London, and across the encyclopedia. the wub "?!" 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, I don't like excessive userboxes either, but they're not a reason to oppose someone's RfA. - ulayiti (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I'm shocked that User:Grue was blocked for his RFA vote. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. —
    allion (?) 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Support. I didn't vote the first time becuase of the questionable content on the nominee's user page, but I am now satisfied with his explanation. --TantalumTelluride 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I like his edits almost universally. I am indifferent wrt userboxes. -- Samir ∙ TC 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Disgusting to oppose on this issue, tantamount to bullying. Grace Note 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. support as before William M. Connolley 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as per User:Grue --- Avalon 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --
    e Ong 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. Support again. [1] Still need more admins. Still think this one will do fine. Haukur 09:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I've always thought of 'Deano' as a good editor. I don't see userboxes as an issue at all. - Nzd (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support, per
    Doc. --Dragon695 07:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Very Strong Support--Victoria Eleanor 07:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Incredibly Strong Support and, like Karmafist, I hope that your RfA lasts for 7 days and not whenever we feel like closing it. haz (user talk)e 21:04, 26 February 2006
  28. Support. Not afraid to express his opinion and say it like it is, yet respects Wikipedia policy and community. Great editor and contributor. --Fang Aili 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support. Should already be an admin. Very well rounded, one of the more sensible editors still here.--Colle||Talk-- 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support. As in the first nom - He may be brusque, but he never acts in bad faith. I believe his open stances are being misunderstood by several "oppose" voters. --Gurubrahma 07:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, as per my original vote - user has numerous perjorative and divisive userboxes on his user page. Of particular note are: the 3 anti-EU ones, the anti-George Bush one, the many anti-USA ones (particularly the anti-American English one), the anti-Zodiac one, and the numerous polemic political ones. Will change vote if this is addressed, especially as he has, at least,
    type 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I just want to clarify that my oppose vote is solely because of the divisive userboxes. If you have multiple userboxes that are anti-whatever and potentially divisive, I am likely to oppose. If these were removed, I would support this otherwise excellent user.
    type 10:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose per original vote citing civility issues. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose prone to incivility and personal attacks upon those he disagrees with: assuming bad faith and unsubstantiated personal attacks [2] abuse of other editors ('your all loosers') [3] (inflammetory references to Americans) [4]. --
    ask? 12:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment I've had no experience with this user but the last diff above reads to me as referring to the stupidity of commas (which is a perfectly valid editorial comment) rather than the stupidity of Americans (which is not). The second one is a bit impatient but it's a topic that has made a lot of people impatient! The first is even more impatient but I'd read it as that rather than a serious personal attack. So, as they say in school, could do better - but it wasn't as bad as I was expecting when I first saw Doc's strong oppose. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, my reason for opposing this editor has nothing to do with his useboxes. If he handles the criticism here (which so far he is doing) and learns from it, I may be willing to support him at a later date. --
    ask? 19:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Strong oppose due to civility concerns and refusal to accept project leadership direction regarding divisive userboxes. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Rob Church (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per userbox thing. --
    ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Oppose. I won't say why, but it has something to do with large payments of money into Swiss bank accounts by userbox-haters who've convinced me to join their obvious attack campaign. Alternatively, y'know, it could be because of the "some idiot" rant on his userpage (yes, I've seen Locke Cole's response, no, that's not the point), or his comment that good user Doc_glasgow "has a history of abusing his admin powers" (if he doesn't know what abuse of admin powers is, how will he go when he's granted them?) ... but that's just too far-fetched. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per a general incivility, both with userboxes, and in discussion. Ral315 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - due to civility concerns. Johntex\talk 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per
    User:Doc glasgow. Jkelly 16:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Oppose for same reasons as before. Jonathunder 16:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I think immediate renominations of borderline cases on RfA are usually about as good an idea as immediate renominations on AfD, so it's puzzling that we're even bothering with this. As to the merits of the candidate, unless he would like to explain why he believes Doc glasgow has a history of abusing admin powers, then he can't possibly be an appropriate choice. We already have way too many people, including a few of our worst admins, eager to assume bad faith and bandy loose accusations about with little basis in reality. --Michael Snow 17:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, this is not a renomination. I cancelled the first vote because the vote was inconclusive at closing and because of the unusual voting activity after closing. The entire community now has another full seven days to consider this, at which time it closes for good. It's the integrity of the process, not the specific nomination that's involved here. -- Cecropia 07:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which raises the interesting question: why was the original result from when the RfA officially ended not taken, in accordance with the RfA procedure that has been in place since Wikipedia's foundation? I apologise if this sounds incivil; I understand that a wave of opposition immediately after an RfA's close is unusual, even unprecedented. I am, however, concerned that Wikipedia policy was violated in this case. haz (user talk)e 21:29, 26 February 2006
    And what was that original result? Have you read anything I've written on this page, including my comment directly above? You seem to have been with us for 5 months, so please point to your source of the "RfA procedure that has been in place since Wikimedia's foundation." And please tell us your theory as to why the nomination was restarted? -- Cecropia 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose for now, per original nomination. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. The diffs and other problems cited above are far to recent for support at present. Even though some of them are vaguely repaired (with the exception of the unacceptable edit summaries: an object lesson in not misusing them as they never go away) they are still too recent to convince me that the editor has a sufficient history of trouble-free interactions that demonstrates a good, and well-embedded understanding of both policy and practice. -Splashtalk 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Tony Sidaway 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Entirely the wrong attitude. Not yet a wikipedian.[reply]
  17. Oppose (same as yesterday,) civility issues, we have enough incivility at the moment, [5], [6], [7].
    Rx StrangeLove 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Very Strong oppose This user was prone leaving his personal opinion in articles, he should realize this is an encyclopedia not a discussion board! Mjal 21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mjai has 122 edits in almost a year and most are on one article and many RfAs. Bureaucrat removal. -- Cecropia 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, could we not do strikeouts please? Just note the number of edits and leave it at that. I trust you, and the other 'crats, to do the right thing at evaluation time and there's just no need for striking out people's words, it's disempowering. IMHO anyway. Oh, and by the way, what the heck is Kim talking about below?++Lar: t/c 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I'm sorry I did't see the rule that stated you had to have a large number of edits to vote..wait their isn't one!!! Maybe Cecropia took away my vote because he/she wanted it to be fair, you know wanted Djr xi 2 to win, he/she seem to be so very worried about this on their discussion page. If I'm not allowed to vote then why are all my other votes still counted???-- [User:Mjal|Mjal]] 00:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    Speculate as you like. If sentiment is to restore your vote, I don't have a problem with that. But your level and the nature of your participation in Wikipedia (virtually all votes on RfA) raises the question as to what your role is in the community, whether you are indeed a unique user, and whether you can reasonably be considered part of a consensus. -- Cecropia 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Rx StrangeLove.
    t||c|m 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Weak oppose, well, for today anyway. I think admins are just "trusted editors." , so I'm pretty quick to support, but before I do that, It does help to understand what you're actually here for. Wikipedia is a <free> <encyclopedia>. I think copyright is ok, but needs a bit of a fixer upper after a century or so of use. :) Wikipedia is a free (as in speech) encyclopedia. We're here to provide part of the workaround for that broken copyright situation. The second thing is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Sure, please, make it NPOV and tidy and lots of userboxes, but I haven't really seen you discuss things like how to overthrow Raul654. <innocent look> ;-) Ok, ok, so that might be a bit too high a standard, though I wish! Apart from that, your answers to questions weren't insane enough :-P (goodness help us when being a decent dude is considered insane.) Hmmm, talk with me a bit maybe, and I'd consider changing my vote this time or more likely next time. I'll leave you a note. In short, nothing solidly bad, but a lot of vague clues that maybe you still need to pick up the basics a bit more here and there, so you'll be fine in a while :-) . <walks off, pondering if a wish to overthrow Raul654 is a proper editing criterium>. Kim Bruning 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose for the same reasons than before. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, per Micheal Snow.--
    (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. change to Strong oppose - relisting is a bad idea - see my prior vote for my prior weak oppose reasoning Trödel&#149;talk 23:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, user has numerous perjorative and divisive userboxes on his user page. --Stormie 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I don't mind the userboxes, but the uncivil comments he has made outside the boxes are enough to swing me in this direction. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose for civility issues. Inflamatory remarks are not helpful for uniting a community.
    emp | talk 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Oppose. Bad temper+incivility+prejudice+userbox fixation+admin powers = wheel-warring+trouble. Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. I am not concerned about the userboxes, but civility is needed in admin responsibilities. Essexmutant 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak Oppose per first time (which had nothing to do with userboxes, btw.) Don't think this rerun was necessary, as even 32/10 is below 80% threshold. Xoloz 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Not sure why people re-nominate users who have already been rejected as admin candidates, when there are so many other potential candidates. Specifically for this user, "Bad temper+incivility+prejudice+userbox fixation+admin powers = wheel-warring+trouble."--Firsfron 17:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per answer to last question. Very deletionist. --ZsinjTalk 03:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Articles are seldom "deleted as you find them". The point of wikipedia is to garner a large amount of subjects and expand upon them. Knowing when to take articles to afd beforehand and garner second opinions is an important skill. -
    Talk 16:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I have never voted oppose simply based on userboxes and I hesitate to do so now. However, I'm neutral per Proto and broadly agree that the majority of those boxes should go. Marskell 11:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Can I do anything to convince you to rid yourself of all the userboxes on your page. I want to support and I will if you get rid of the ones that do nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 15:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Evidence dealing with things that would actually affect admin behaviour disturb me, however, I would like to clarify that I received support despite my polemic stance on my own user page, and although I didn't have userboxes, userboxes are basically a list of views one way or another. I cannot see why people would oppose because that person open declares a very radical political and polemic stance.
    Be eudaimonic!) 20:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Neutral Can't really support nor oppose this user. Moe ε 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changing to neutral. I can't support because of the recent personal attacks. Please comment on content, not editors. --TantalumTelluride 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, I'm in agreement with the above. --kingboyk 13:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral; good candidate, and adminship should be no big deal. However, a bit controversial for a self-nom; come back in a month, and ask someone else to nominate you. +sj + 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • My responses to most opposition are found on my user page - specifically regarding POV, copyright and civility. I'm not going to bore you be repeating them again here if any come up again. DJR (Talk) 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I must say I find it disturbing that the number of opposing votes doubled in the 3 hours after my original RfA closed... and equally disturbing that this opposition appears to be sustained. I am not going to waste my energy trying to counter the anti-userbox lobby, who have moved with force and conviction. I fundementally disagree with any suggestion that my userboxes are "perjorative and devisive" - if that is the case then any and all POV statements are "perjorative and devisive". While I will take back the comments about Doc glasgow, I cannot see any point in repeating the same things I said last time yet again. I have stated my views and my user page explains my philosphies. I wholly accept people to disagree with some of them - that is the nature of POV. However, there is no point in equivocation, and the denial of personal POV is something that I believe to be a mistake. NPOV is best achieved when POV is openly declared. Finally, I must add my amazement and deep concern that User:Grue was blocked by User:Kelly Martin for their comment alongside their vote. Obviously, the user was promptly unblocked by another administrator - however the principle is deeply disturbing and seems to challenge the foundations of the Wikipedian community. DJR (Talk) 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit summary usage: 83% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Djr_xi's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Admin status would enable me to purge one of my biggest frustrations on Wikipedia - pages created my mistake. I have come across countless pages when redirects are dead, subpages are simply empty, or just repeated pages that nobody could be bothered to alter. As an admin, I would be able to delete these as I find them. On top of this, one of my biggest priorities would be keen to help put at end to the constant backlogs experienced at
WP:MfD
. Finally, the use of admin tools with regards to vandalism, particularly repetitive obscenities and linkspam, acts as a primary factor in my decision to request adminship.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
featured portal
status has increased its profile.
Other than the Portal, articles in which the majority of content has come from myself include Arctic Monkeys, The Judd School and Soccer AM.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. In my time as a registered Wikipedian, I have had one experience of stress that pushed me to breaking point. I have maintained an extremely POV version of events on my user page. The event was at
WP:AGF
any time conflict has approached. I must say, however, that I would not be the Wikipedian I am today if I had not experienced that block back in November. It really opens your eyes.

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. Well first and foremost I would attempt to calm the user down and attempt to make them think clearly and logically rather than in the heat of the moment (as I know from experience). If the page was deleted through clear violation of policy, then I would explain this to the user. If (s)he does calm down and still persists, or if the article was deleted for some other reason, I would seek the opinions of other administrators by posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If some sort of consensus becomes clear then I would act accordingly. But I seriously doubt I would ever act unilaterally on a single complaint, and in this scenario I would be compromised by my inherent belief that the article should be deleted.
5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would
assume good faith
first time, but keep an eye on the user/IP and post a message on his IP talk page asking to explain his/her reasoning for the deletion. If the user persistently repeats this then I would have to consider warning him about editting without summary as an anonymous user. In this situation, however, I doubt I would be willing to block the IP - it is not vandalism and you must assume good faith. We were all anonymous users once upon a time.
6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of
WP:CSD
. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. Take the abuse on the chin, and delete the stub again. I'd explain to the user why the stub qualifies for speedy deletion under
WP:CIVIL
. If the stub creation persisted, I'd use a three-strikes-and-you're-blocked warning system. If (s)he stopped the stubs but persisted with the abuse... well I guess that'd depend on how innovative the abuse was! People go crazy when they're angry, and the best way to calm them down (IMO) is to see the funny side.
7. Question from Hermione1980. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?
A. First things first, I'd double check my reasoning and basis for my action to make sure I was justified to do it. If it was my mistake, then I'd apologise and thank the admin for correcting it. If I was right in my action, however, I would contact the said admin and ask for his/her reasoning and attempt to find a compromise. Depending on the action, the importance/significance of giving ground will vary. Overturning a 24 hour block for vandalism, for example, would only be an issue to me if the offender immediately re-starts his/her campaign of vandalism - thus I would be fairly willing to accept compromise. However, undeleted a page or template that violated wiki policy - that is an issue and I would quote as many Wikipedia policies at the said admin as needed to convince him otherwise. Either way, however, a revert war is not appropriate. It would be up to the said admin to take back his/her actions - anything else without consultation is stooping to their level.
8. Question from Mozzerati please could comment about how you would act on copyright issues? a) in general b) if you came across an article which you believed was copied from another web site c) if a new user asked you for advice a page that the user believed was copied.
A. a) I would always seek a resolution that avoids deletion - all work one way or another can be traced back to copyrighted work, and it is important that we uphold the evolutionary knowledge process. However, any blatent infringement that cannot easily be modified (esp. non-fair use images) have to be deleted in order to avoid illegality - that is non-negotiable.
b) Make a note on the talk page to bring this to the attention of other users. I would attempt to re-write as much as possible using the copyrighted work as a guide. If the copied work is relatively small, this should not be too big a problem. However, if a massive amount of copyrighted text has been used then the offending material would have to be deleted. If the original location of the copy could be determined, I would seek their permission to use the text (if it is substantive/unique enough to justify the effort over simply re-writing). If this is not forthcoming, then the copied text would have to be deleted.
c) I would direct them to
WP:COPY
- if feasible I would encourage them to re-write the page using the copyrighted work as a loose guide. Ultimately, the copied work is the past. The future destroys the past by building on it. If you protect the past, you destroy the future. If we can encourage the future - the evolution of the past - the development of work already done - whilst obeying the the laws of the state of Florida, then we'll all be better for it.
9. Question from
Proto
. Will you be undeleting any userboxes that you see a fellow admin has deleted, if you disagree with their call?

Absolutely not. I completely support the elimination of templatised userboxes that violate wikipedia policy - all such userboxes should be substed if used on user pages. Any templatised form that violates policy should be deleted... and given that the vast majority appear to do so one way or another, the current userbox cull seems perfectly justified. In any case, I would not undelete anything without the approval of whoever deleted it in the first place.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Djr_xi_2&oldid=1089732135"