On 6/23/06, Michael Noda <michael.noda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/23/06, Lord Voldemort
<lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Because we don't know which admin has done
this, just that it happened.
Yet. To quote Saw2 "Oh yes, there will be blood." (But not really,
desysopping won't physically harm anybody...
Sure. But desysopping somebody
needs less time/skills than preparing a
legal action against him ;-) (and it's something against which he
cannot file an appeal)
You're wrong there; our villain will be able to file an appeal with ArbCom;
they'll laugh at him, but he will be able to appeal.
Of course he can. But: If he appeals to ArbCom, it will be dealt with
much faster (and favourable for Wikipedia) than if he is able to
appeal to the whole bunch of appeal courts (up to Supreme Court if he
has the time for it), and this will take *a lot of time*. So I don't
think we can compare this.
Actually, that's an interesting question;
presuming we ever identify the
Wikitruth admin(s), will it stop at summary desysopping, or do we expect
that they will also be community banned?
I think, if a sysop is found to be the
person who has published
deleted content, he should also be community banned. However I must
say that I was unable to find a applicable paragraph in
[[Wikipedia:Banning policy]], probably as it is a rather unusual case.
But, as Mark Wagner said, as long as he didn't undelete the page but
only looked at it, it might be quite difficult to find the person who
has done so...
Michael