User talk:Durga's Trident

Funny. that

This is clueful. I have made a motion on the workshop page for the Committee to either approve your use of an alternate account, or else to ask you to post from your main account. It seems unfair that parties could hide behind an avatar while posting criticism. That seems to say, "I want to retaliate against you, but you can't retaliate against me." Your criticisms would be taken more seriously if you claimed them. If somebody harasses you or retaliates, let me know and I will stop them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to retaliate. I want to present evidence. Please don't try and make things personal. And yes: I don't want him or his friends to retaliate against me. It is not legitimate that retaliation should take place at all.

They aren't "criticisms." They are evidence, backed up by diffs, and often quotes. Because they are so well backed up, they cease to be criticisms, and become merely statements of fact.

If you dispute their factual nature, then it is for you to present that evidence, as has already been done (what you call "cluefull"). That is good.

The claims have nothing whatsoever to do with my personal credibility. Nor do I wish them to: I want the evidence to stand on its own merits, and I believe it does so very well. Wikipedia should not be based on personal credibility, but on evidence and reality. So I would not feel that kind of "taken more seriously" to be a legitimate way to make my case; it's only an ad hom argument in my favor. Thank you for your offer of defense. There are many, many people who could have used such defense in the past. It was not forthcoming, but perhaps you have turned over a new leaf. Durga's Trident (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durga's Trident for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

The proposed use of this account is not a permissible use of a sockpuppet, and as such I have blocked the account. If you do have any actual concerns about harassment, you are welcome (as are others) to submit evidence to the Committee by email, either to the Committee's mailing list or to any of the sitting arbitrators individually for circulation amongst the others. A list of arbitrators' email addresses is provided at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. There were several reasons for using a sock, and one main reason was that this evidence should be before the whole community. But I do have actual concerns of off-wiki stuff, because I am very open to attack in some ways and such attacks seem to be recent (at times, it would be extremely easy to lose me thousands of -um- the currency I use). I could do it myself if I didn't mind getting caught, and I'm no hacker. Anyway, in the future you might want to consider allowing socks for Arbitrations, because it was between this and the email (not between this an my other accounts), and I chose this for good reasons and not all of them selfish: Using a sock was the lesser of evils relative to people's concerns about keeping the Arbitrations public (which I share). Using a sock, I could also respond to concerns with the evidence. Durga's Trident (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your evidence from the case page, for the simple reason that you don't get to publicly attack someone while hiding behind a disposable account. Here is the relevant diff. You can either a) email this material to the Committee (or just point them to the page history), or b) repost it using your main account. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, though. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very saddened, because it is obvious that because of your removal the Arbitrators will ignore the evidence, and the community will forget it. But thank you for recommending that the Committee become a secret tribunal, since that is the obvious and most appropriate way to run Wikipedia. I am also very dolorous over the fact that no one else found any worth in the evidence. Durga's Trident (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the evidence has value, then the Committee will consider it whether submitted publicly or privately. If your goal is to make a case to the community, then using a sock to post a tirade on an ArbCom evidence page is a non-starter. MastCell ^Talk 06:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom members should not be influenced by back-channels maa durgaa. We don't allow one party in trial to go into the back rooms and influence the jurors and the judge.MaxPont (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a noble effort (if I do say so myself) to keep things in the light of day. The information has been emailed to the Arbitrators- just as a formality since it is in the page history. Durga's Trident (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]