I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with
developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:
In the last few days, a user named "Viking" has vandalized/downsized a
couple of articles he considered "indecent" (especially the [[fisting]]
article), threatened people not to question what he is doing if they
didn't have "administrator status" and then left (there was a brief
discussion of a possible ban). Kils subsequently deleted Viking's user and
talk pages and explained it was an "experiment of his children".
I asked him for details, he responded and then *deleted his talk page*
before I could read his response. I restored the talk page and there was
the following response.
-----------------------
Eloquence: I confirm this - I do not think any had the quality of
vandlism, otherwise I would have stepped in. We were concerned that a
"handbook type" with direct instructions to certain practises on certain
pages was endangering the reputation of wikipeia and of us as visible
contributers and cooperators. A first thing many teachers and professors
for example do, before they endorse or use a web based project in class or
with students/parents, is to search for ugly content within. And there was
some, and as we were supported by responses of colleagues with the right
background it was beyond the rules of wikipedia - young vikings are often
of very spontaneous mannors, I advised them to do things different, but
then we are also very democratic. they plan to do it different now - we
could have done everything anonymous, but we did not - from that you can
deduct that we all are interested in communication and construction - we
are all astonished how much time you spent in the wikipedia project
(Anerkennung!) you seem to need only very little sleep - best greetings
across the ocean (from the USA) from uwe kils - user Kils 18:50 31 May
2003 (UTC)
-----------------------
It seems quite clear that Uwe Kils shares Viking's standard of "decency"
regarding Wikipedia articles and feels that material e.g. about specific
sexual practices is inappropriate. In light of his actions, I do not trust
him to be a sysop anymore.
In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion
first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might
delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I
also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a
track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because
then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone
feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.
Regards,
Erik