At 12:08 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with 
developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:

*snip snip*

In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion 
first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might 
delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I 
also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a 
track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because 
then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone 
feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.

Well, here's my take.

I doubt that Kils would delete any other pages. He seems to have been overly hasty in his deletion of the Viking pages (because a record ought to be left of the incident), but I believe that his reasoning was semi-sound. He was accepting responsibility for the actions of (it would appear) his subordinates. It sounds like Kils was the sysop that Viking claimed was a member of the Viking group. It also sounds like, while Kils shares the Viking views regarding the safety of children on the net, that he plans on advancing his goals in a different manner. Given that, I see no danger in restoring Kils sysop powers, understanding of course that they should be revoked if he unilateraly enages in any form of censorship. As Kils stated, his concern was that the article was a bit more explicit and "handbook" styled than perhaps was necessary or desirable in an encyclopedia. While I don't happen to agree, it's certainly a valid point. Given that Kils seems to have assured us that the Viking group is now commited to not using User:Viking's tactics, I think Kils status ought to be restored.

-----

Dante Alighieri
dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
   -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321