<DIV>Even if Viking was a sysop, anyone could critisize any of his actions. If he wanted to, an anonymous user could critisize every single one of Jimbo's actions, and if the arguments were good enough, Jimbo may even act on it. In Wikipedia, everyone has equal speech rights. Never the right to lie or intimidate, though.</DIV>
<DIV>--LittleDan<BR><BR><B><I>a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I've already reversed my position regarding a ban and apologized to <BR>Viking (on [[User talk:Viking]]), so I don't want to get back into <BR>that argument. However, I will answer your question:<BR><BR>>What evidence can you present that Viking's claims of sysop status<BR>>were false?<BR><BR>Not listed on [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]<BR><BR>Said he had some other account that had sysop status. Refused to say <BR>which. Behaved in a very un-sysop like way. And real sysops do not <BR>hide behind second accounts.<BR><BR>Look - the default position if someone claims some sort of authority <BR>must be "prove it". User:Viking absolutely failed to do so. You can't <BR>just come in, say "I'm a sysop, don't criticise my edits unless <BR>you're a sysop."<BR><BR>But I've admitted to an over-reaction on my part. Sorry. It won't <BR>happen again. (well, not until the next time)<BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Allan Crossman <BR>a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk<BR>http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Free <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/*http://calendar.yahoo.com">online calendar</a> with sync to Outlook(TM).