[WikiEN-l] Oversight -- Really new or not?

Sat Jun 24 13:23:48 UTC 2006

On 6/23/06, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/23/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/23/06, Matt Brown <morven at 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