Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Tiptoety (Talk) & Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

What is this all evidence of?

It would help to know what is being claimed about the numerous remarks quoted in the evidence. Various possibilities occur to me:

Unacceptable whether true or false
Unacceptable because false
Unacceptable because unsourced but acceptable with adequate justification
Unacceptable in the context but acceptable in other contexts
Unacceptable from a non-admin user
Unacceptable as part of a pattern but acceptable individually

Presenting evidence is all very well, but it helps to say what it is supposed to be evidence of. Groomtech (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my evidence for one is evidence that is unacceptable from any user, as I think most of the sets of evidence are. The main problem is that they're uncivil. The problem of sourcing only really comes in when looking at accusations - and yes, CoM does make a lot of unsourced accusations. His accusations are also said in an uncivil manner which doesn't help his case. If someone has a good faith concern, they are well within their rights to bring it up in a mature way with the person who they have a concern with. CoM creates concerns out of absolute nothing then attempts to take whoever he's referring to to town for it - often there's no weight behind the accusation and it's done in a way to maximise drama. Not that's exactly what we have issue with. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there is some truth to all of the above bullet points except numbers four and five (particularly number five, this has absolutely nothing to do with ChildofMidnight not being an administrator, and had an admin done the things C of M has it would be just as, and indeed even more so, problematic). Some of the points C of M has made in the past had some validity, but the manner he expressed them was unacceptable given civility policies (see also this ArbCom principle regarding "fair criticism"). Other accusations he has made are simply incorrect or at least heavily exaggerated (see Fut.Perf.'s evidence, for example). There is the additional problem that many (indeed almost all) of C of M's accusations are "unsourced" and that this is a problem whether or not they are "true" (though that's a subjective point). See this recent principle from an ArbCom case regarding the casting of aspersions in that light. Finally had this been a few incidents in isolation it would not be such a big deal, certainly not cause for an ArbCom case, but the fact is that this is part of an extremely consistent (and lengthy) pattern as has been well documented. You might also want to read through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight if you have not done so, and perhaps see the comment I made in the first section of the RfC talk page, which in part speaks to some of the issues you bring up. In terms of this case, proposals at the Workshop will eventually draw conclusions ("findings of fact") about "what this all means" based upon the evidence, which is perhaps what you are ultimately looking for here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]