--- jlk7e(a)juno.com wrote:
Just from reading the discussion here on the mailing
list (without having looked too closely at the
situation), I note a couple of things. 1) "Viking"
deletes pages with sexual content; 2) "Viking"
claims to be a sysop, under another account; 3) A
sysop, "Kils" deletes Viking's page without
consultation, offers a rather bizarre explanation
for it, and seems to agree with Viking about sexual
content. 4) Kils then deletes his talk page.
Hmm....interesting...
And on the presumption of innocence, this is silly.
What pertains in a criminal trial does not pertain
in judgments of people on wikipedia. That phrase
seems to be interpreted far too broadly in popular
culture. And what's the standard of proof here? I
would imagine that the lesser civil standard of
"preponderance of the evidence" would apply here,
rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a
reasonable doubt". I think the preponderance of
evidence would suggest that either a) Viking was
lying about being a sysop; or b) Viking was telling
the truth, in which case what ever account of his is
a sysop account ought not to be.
John
(jlk7e)
Preponderance of the evidence?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com