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)
On Sat, 31 May 2003 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:
Sorry, my message wasn't meant as an attack on your position. It was meant as... something else. An alert, to draw people's attention to what was going on. Perhaps it was unnecessarily hasty, and not very well thought-out, and for that I apologise.
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.
Theoretically, it is possible. I think it's best not to make an assumption either way at this stage.
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
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)