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.

--LittleDan

a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

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@blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).