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)