| Revision as of 01:25, 29 November 2008 edit Durga's Trident (talk | contribs)114 edits ←Created page with 'This is a sock puppet being used to present evidence in the Cold fusion Arbitration case. One of the arbitrators active on the case has been informed concerning th...'Next edit → |
| (No difference) |
Revision as of 01:25, 29 November 2008
This is a sock puppet being used to present evidence in the Cold fusion Arbitration case. One of the arbitrators active on the case has been informed concerning the other username of this sock via email per WP:SOCK.
There is no objection to having a checkuser run on this sock to make sure it is not a banned user. However it is requested that only the checkuser have this information, and that it go no further. It is also requested that only the checkusers FloNight, FT2, Deskana, Rlevse, or Newyorkbrad do a checkuser on this account if one is deemed to be necessary.
I understand the wish that one be presented with one's accuser. That is a valuable precedent in real life. There are some things about Misplaced Pages, however, which make it unnecessary.
First, on Misplaced Pages, the veracity of the accuser cannot be questioned, since everything is a matter of public record.
Second, tu quoque does not apply: if another user acted badly, it does not mean that the first user is any less guilty (since real-life physical/material considerations do not apply).
Third, if any user acted badly, then it will be apparent from any relevant articles and talk pages. There is no way that a user who significantly impacts the case can hide on Misplaced Pages. Thus, the identity of the user is not necessary to determine whose actions should be considered by the Committee (unlike real life where crimes may be committed in secret).
Fourth, if the foregoing are true, the only reason for knowing the identity of this user would be revenge. A secondary reason might be to cause a distraction from consideration of the evidence itself by ad hominem attacks against the user (as usually happens).
Fifth, it is useless and unfair to reveal the identity of one user and open them to attack, when many people have been involved behind the scenes (as is usually the case).
Sixth, since evidence may be presented by email, presenting it by sock is actually the more open rout.
Seventh, in the past there has been retribution off-wiki, including email bombing of a website (if my information is correct) in the case of Dana Ullman, flame emails, and very suspicious telephone calls to several users, the most recent only a week or so ago. And, there has been a huge amount of on-wiki retribution.
For all these reasons, this user does not think it unreasonable to request that their evidence be accepted at the Cold Fusion Arbitration, without their identity being revealed. Durga's Trident (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)