| Revision as of 15:41, 23 July 2007 editMackensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators125,054 edits →Name dropper: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:49, 23 July 2007 edit undoRannpháirtí anaithnid (old) (talk | contribs)6,688 edits →Name dropper: gross objectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| Who the heck is ]? (This is the fourth SPA-like account to appear during the course of this dispute.) Their contribution here is their only one to Misplaced Pages. Also, has this case turned into an RfC on MarkThomas. Would an RfC/U not be a more appropriate venue? --]<sup>]</sup> 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | Who the heck is ]? (This is the fourth SPA-like account to appear during the course of this dispute.) Their contribution here is their only one to Misplaced Pages. Also, has this case turned into an RfC on MarkThomas. Would an RfC/U not be a more appropriate venue? --]<sup>]</sup> 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *Name dropper has identified himself to the Arbitration Committee. It's our understanding that the account is no longer editing. ] ] 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | *Name dropper has identified himself to the Arbitration Committee. It's our understanding that the account is no longer editing. ] ] 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Aaah, mysterious. Can anyone give evidence from behind a gauze screen? The "right to face one's accuser" has been a fundamental requisite of justice from Ancient times. This is a arbitration, is it not? So agreement is supposed to take place ''between'' editors, no? How do you propose that an editor should reach an agreement with others when they are hidden from them? If it is not an arbitration - if it is a trial - then how do you propose that an editor should defend themselves against the evidence from source kept from them? I'll remind you that this right is a fundamental and ancient principal of justice for no small reason. Shall we be losing any other elements of Roman law today? How about "innocent until proven guilty"? The right to offer a defense? Or would you like to set aside the importance of evidence? --]<sup>]</sup> 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:49, 23 July 2007
Name dropper
Who the heck is User:Name dropper? (This is the fourth SPA-like account to appear during the course of this dispute.) Their contribution here is their only one to Misplaced Pages. Also, has this case turned into an RfC on MarkThomas. Would an RfC/U not be a more appropriate venue? --sony-youth 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Name dropper has identified himself to the Arbitration Committee. It's our understanding that the account is no longer editing. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aaah, mysterious. Can anyone give evidence from behind a gauze screen? The "right to face one's accuser" has been a fundamental requisite of justice from Ancient times. This is a arbitration, is it not? So agreement is supposed to take place between editors, no? How do you propose that an editor should reach an agreement with others when they are hidden from them? If it is not an arbitration - if it is a trial - then how do you propose that an editor should defend themselves against the evidence from source kept from them? I'll remind you that this right is a fundamental and ancient principal of justice for no small reason. Shall we be losing any other elements of Roman law today? How about "innocent until proven guilty"? The right to offer a defense? Or would you like to set aside the importance of evidence? --sony-youth 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)