| Revision as of 20:10, 23 July 2007 editMackensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators125,132 edits →Name dropper: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:44, 23 July 2007 edit undoRannpháirtí anaithnid (old) (talk | contribs)6,688 edits →Name dropper: withdawingNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| The evidence presented is all public, so your ability to engage it is surely not diminished--this is not secret evidence. This isn't a trial, we're not in a courtroom, and I'm not a judge. For the finer points of how this system differs from Roman law I suggest consulting {{user|Newyorkbrad}}, head clerk, who knows a good deal about the law. ] ] 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | The evidence presented is all public, so your ability to engage it is surely not diminished--this is not secret evidence. This isn't a trial, we're not in a courtroom, and I'm not a judge. For the finer points of how this system differs from Roman law I suggest consulting {{user|Newyorkbrad}}, head clerk, who knows a good deal about the law. ] ] 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I could not engage with a thorough understanding of the grievances presented by an anonymous accusers. I would not be able to properly defend myself against their accusations. It is (logically) impossible to reach an agreement for future mutual conduct with one. I do not believe that I should expect more of MarkThomas (or Domer48, or anyone) than I would of myself. Therefore, I'm sorry, but I going to have to withdraw from this arbitration. My reasons are as follows: | |||
| :# What exactly is being arbitrated? The ] (as is the title) or ]? | |||
| :# Allowing evidence from anonymous accusers undermines the process of arbitration and makes it less likely (impossible even) to reach agreement between aggrieved editors. | |||
| :I possibly has a wrong idea about what this process would be about. If MarkThomas is genuinely thought to be an problem, then I believe an RfC/U would be more appropriate. We do not have the right to judge him in isolation from the community. Thanks for your time. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:44, 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 of sources 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)
The evidence presented is all public, so your ability to engage it is surely not diminished--this is not secret evidence. This isn't a trial, we're not in a courtroom, and I'm not a judge. For the finer points of how this system differs from Roman law I suggest consulting Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), head clerk, who knows a good deal about the law. Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could not engage with a thorough understanding of the grievances presented by an anonymous accusers. I would not be able to properly defend myself against their accusations. It is (logically) impossible to reach an agreement for future mutual conduct with one. I do not believe that I should expect more of MarkThomas (or Domer48, or anyone) than I would of myself. Therefore, I'm sorry, but I going to have to withdraw from this arbitration. My reasons are as follows:
- What exactly is being arbitrated? The Great Irish Famine (as is the title) or User:MarkThomas?
- Allowing evidence from anonymous accusers undermines the process of arbitration and makes it less likely (impossible even) to reach agreement between aggrieved editors.
- I possibly has a wrong idea about what this process would be about. If MarkThomas is genuinely thought to be an problem, then I believe an RfC/U would be more appropriate. We do not have the right to judge him in isolation from the community. Thanks for your time. --sony-youth 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)