he didn't present any evidence that he was a sysop. I know what you're going to
say:"innocent until proven guilty". If I said I was the president of the US,
would you assume that I was until proven otherwise? It's really the same thing.
--LittleDan
Oliver Pereira <omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2003 a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Please see [[User talk:Viking/ban]]
This page has just been deleted by [[User:Kils]], who is a sysop. He also
deleted [[User:Viking]] shortly afterwards. His explanations in the
comment box for both deletions were: "project of my children - deleted
after threats".
User:Viking has been nominated for a ban by Mbecker,
seconded by
Wapcaplet, thirded by me, fourthed by Dante, fifthed by CGS. No
opposition at the time of writing (except from Viking).
Actions include censorship of sex-related pages;
totally false claims
that he was a sysop, to intimidate users and make them stop
criticising him; suggesting that the reason someone wanted to know
the identity of his sysop account was so that they could hurt his
children, and so on. General unpleasantness.
What evidence can you present that Viking's claims of sysop status were
false?
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).