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]

This refers to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence#Problematic edits to global warming related talk pages (both article and user talk)

Ryan Postlethwaite's evidence, for the most part, seems mild, especially compared with other evidence of bad behavior on CoM's part. There is bad behavior, but the more it takes place on either the article talk pages or even the general sanctions complaints page, the less bad it is. CoM's really bad behavior seems to be in comments on his own talk page and the talk pages of other editors, particularly admins. That's where the focus should be -- unless there's better evidence related to conduct on climate-change articles. Here are RP's statements (numbers) and what I see wrong with them (indented):

1. from Talk:Global warming
   Unproductive discussion, repeats ad nauseum issues without source and substantial reasons, WP:FORUM

   No, actually this wasn't off-topic. It's a content matter on the proper talk page. I don't see where he needed a source, and I don't see the repetition, much less ad nauseum. I have a feeling I might be missing something (or RP is), but I just don't see it. There is a difference between "global warming" and "anthropogenic global warming", and that's a title-related issue. Did Ryan add the right diff here?

2. I'm sure our admin elite will sort this mess out in no time once they're made aware of it and have a chance to review the evidence of BozMo's foul play."
   Civility, disparaging sardonic demeanor.

   It's a statement on his talk page about the admin who blocked him several hours before. Being "sardonic" is not a matter for ArbCom. I can't imagine even a huge volume of sardonic statements being an ArbCom-level problem. The one problem here is demeaning another editor, and we all know that blocks make people angry and commonly aren't worth noticing. To bring this up looks like overkill. Kind of like insulting CoM at the top of an AN/I thread.

3. "...involvement has been very disruptive and his enforcements have only gone after one "side""
   Battleground menality.

   Another statement after the same block as the one referred to in #1. This statement of CoM was posted five minutes after BozMo's block statement. Five minutes. This is evidence of exactly nothing. And the problem with his statements about 2/0 is that they're not backed up with evidence and are therefore personal attacks. But there's better evidence of that elsewhere -- comments that were not made five minutes after being blocked.

4. "swan song of an incompetent and dishonest admin to me ... So you join an elite club of abusive admins who act improperly"
   Unwilling to conduct RFC/U, responds with personal attacks

   24 minutes after the diff noted in #3, 29 minutes after the block.

5. "doesn't change the fact that your involvement has been grotesquely biased and damaging."
   See previous.

   Note: Additional Diffs provided in context below. They are numbered.

   This is one of the statements that got CoM blocked by BozMo and that Ryan took to A/N for review, saying I don't find them to be particularly uncivil - I probably wouldn't warn for them. [1] If CoM had backed up this comment with evidence it would simply be a very strongly worded bit of criticism, the fairness of which could be and would be judged on the evidence. Compare with I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll (see previous diff). Also unsourced (because unsourcable). This diff is actually evidence of serious wrong, because CoM has never provided evidence that his statement was anything other than a vitriolic attack. (The proper thing for BozMo to do would have been to draw this out by asking CoM to back it up with evidence or withdraw it and issue a strong warning never to make statements like that without evidence. Confronting CoM calmly, in a way that doesn't look unfair -- the way a block in that case looks unfair -- would have left CoM with no choice but the high road or the low road, and the low road would have led to a much better block, the high road to withdrawal of the attack, a proper accusation or at least silence. Notice that it isn't really climate-change related. CoM could have made this statement in complaining about admins dealing with any problem at all involving a bunch of editors in a conflict. The problem is CoM's treatment of others when he's involved in any kind of hot dispute -- that's what all the evidence seems to revolve around. It's pretty obvious that there's bad conduct on the part of many editors over at the climate-change articles (the reason for the general sanctions). CoM doesn't handle that kind of situation well. Keep in mind that it's a difficult situation to handle for anyone who gets involved in it, which is an ameliorating factor (not enough of one to avoid an indef block, in my opinion, but it's an ameliorating factor).

Anyone familiar with this case knows that CoM has a chip on his shoulder regarding (often reversed) admin actions against him. Common sense tells us that one of the purposes of admin enforcement and ArbCom actions is to help the erring editor see the error of his or her ways. (It's not the only, or the most important, purpose. But it is a purpose.) Unnecessarily provoking an editor -- in this case with a pile of small complaints (except for the last one) that don't take into account the ameliorating circumstances -- hinders that purpose. And it's useless for every other purpose here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. from Talk:Global warming
   Unproductive discussion, repeats ad nauseum issues without source and substantial reasons, WP:FORUM

Ummmm... I made this statement once? Are misrepresentations allowed into evidence. I think this needs to be corrected. I made a statement once that our article content should reflect reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Brittanica and that we shouldn't distort article content. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm sure our admin elite will sort this mess out in no time once they're made aware of it and have a chance to review the evidence of BozMo's foul play."
   Civility, disparaging sardonic demeanor.

This bad block was overturned. I think I was pretty kind all things considered. I'm still waiting for an apology. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. "...involvement has been very disruptive and his enforcements have only gone after one "side""
   Battleground menality.

How is pointing out the problematic editing of an admin inappropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. "swan song of an incompetent and dishonest admin to me ... So you join an elite club of abusive admins who act improperly"

Actually, I refactored this out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]