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)
Dear wikipedians,
Now that I´ve been around for a while, I´d like to humbly submit my request
for sysop status.
Best regards, Kosebamse
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
>From a recent New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/books/31BOMB.html?tntemail1
'The Naval Academy's history department, in its guidelines on plagiarism,
states that citations "must clearly and explicitly guide the reader to the
sources used" and that writers must indicate "all use of another's words,
even if they constitute only part of a sentence, with quotation marks and
specific citation."
A statement on plagiarism that is posted on the Web site of the American
Historical Association states that a historian "should never simply borrow
and rephrase the findings of other scholars" and that "the clearest abuse is
the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation."'
So what standard should we follow?
Should we be using footnotes in all articles in such instances?
I should confess that I have used considerable "rephrasing" from time to
time in my Wikipedia articles. That avoids copyright violation but not
plagarism as defined above.
Fred
Hi,
Please see [[User talk:Viking/ban]]
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.
So I suppose we now need a ruling from on high. :-)
Thanks,
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
I've already reversed my position regarding a ban and apologized to
Viking (on [[User talk:Viking]]), so I don't want to get back into
that argument. However, I will answer your question:
>What evidence can you present that Viking's claims of sysop status
>were false?
Not listed on [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]
Said he had some other account that had sysop status. Refused to say
which. Behaved in a very un-sysop like way. And real sysops do not
hide behind second accounts.
Look - the default position if someone claims some sort of authority
must be "prove it". User:Viking absolutely failed to do so. You can't
just come in, say "I'm a sysop, don't criticise my edits unless
you're a sysop."
But I've admitted to an over-reaction on my part. Sorry. It won't
happen again. (well, not until the next time)
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Hi all - look we all know that I can be more than a little abrasive when
people I don't know come in out of nowhere and accuse me of not knowing
my facts, or lying about history. It's one of my weaknesses. I hope
everyone also knows that I generally try to be patient and get people to
work together (even if it's in what Mr. Kemp calls "teacher mode"),
asking specific questions, giving specific examples, etc. I hope that
my positive contributions over the long haul outweigh the negative ones.
If that's not what people think, I really should just take off ;-)
The most recent unpleasantness is really weighing on me. Llywrch
e-mailed me and asked me to feed no trolls while he tried to get some
cooperation, and I pretty much have - but in the meantime, if you look
at the user contributions, you will see that really nasty accusations
about me and, to a lesser extent, and one who has tried to step in, all
over the site. They are almost entirely taken out of context or
deliberate misunderstandings or misquotes.
I also believe that this person has shown up in at least two other
guises in the past, and had run-ins with, or left comments about me or
my contributions in each persona - almost all repetitions of the old HJ
controversies, but with a French nationalist flair. The person is now
also accusing me of forcing others in some way to join in a persecution,
and also claims that I regularly try to get people to leave through
bullying and intimidation (boredom and wordiness perhaps .). Oddly
enough, some of the people he seems to be saying I "forced out" are the
very people I think are his other personae.
Not only is there a possibility of the troll-like habit of changing
identities, but I notice that many of the excuses given to others as to
why he can't get along is because of a cross-cultural language problem.
While it is true that he writes these comments in a quaint and stilted
manner, his tirades (especially those directed against me) are amazingly
fluid and use lots of polysyllables (apparently, several of us can't be
understood because our words are complicated - it's kind of like that
old SNL skit about the defrosted cave-man).
Anyway, could someone not currently involved (or who has not yet been
blasted) PLEASE take a look? There's a frightening amount of
commentary, but I think this person is not in any way aware of how to
work with others or really interested in participating in a positive
manner. I am not using the "b" word, but if that is already something
this user is under (it has been suggested he's DW), then it's not a
problem. If it's not, perhaps someone with a Voice of Authority (and in
his eyes, the only authority is Jimbo, whose wrath he threatens
regularly) could ask him nicely to quit his abuse and play nice?
Thanks!
Julie
An anonymous user has inserted the following text into basically every article
relating to gay film:
"[http://www.aboutgaymovies.info/ About Gay Movies] for information about gay
themed movies and TV series."
Or, sometimes:
"[http://www.aboutgaymovies.info/ About Gay Movies]: Information about gay
themed movies & tv-series. Also gay movie history, wallpapers, glbt
filmfestivals, sweepstakes and more."
This is essentially an effort to advertise for a (mediocre) website. I think
this is a bad idea, and we should discourage it, and maybe make some formal
proviso against it.
The user has contributed what appears at first glance to be some good content
([[Chubby culture]]), but at second glance it's just the [[Bear community]]
article s///d into an article on chubbies. Dunno what to think of that, but
anyway..
Saurabh
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=24…
------
The great lesson of history is that knowledge develops through the conflict of
viewpoints... a consensus view... severely stultifies; it fails to see the
problems of that consensus and it depends on the existence of critics to break
up that iceberg and permit knowledge to develop. -- Walter Gilbert