Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC).

• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Desired outcome

1. To establish whether or not Wikipedia editors see problems with certain aspects of ChildofMidnight's behavior as an editor.
2. If a significant portion of the community does feel there are problems, to: A) Simply document that fact in the form of a request for comment; B) Provide ChildofMidnight with concrete feedback about where the problem areas are in terms of behavior and what can (and should) be done to improve so future dispute resolution can be avoided.
3. More idealistically and generally, to serve as a model for "community-wide" dispute resolution processes that involve excellent encyclopedia contributors who, at times, fall afoul of "community norms" with respect to how the encyclopedia is to be written.

Description

It should first be said (indeed strongly emphasized) that ChildofMidnight is a prolific content editor who is undoubtedly a strong asset to this project and its central goal—writing a free content encyclopedia. He has created well over 200 articles (per his user page), expanded many others, and had many articles listed on the main page via DYK. He also has done a lot of good work at articles for deletion and other areas in "project space," and often works in a highly collegial manner with other editors.

At the same time, ChildofMidnight has repeatedly gone against the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly those pertaining to civility and discussion with fellow contributors. The manner in which he interacts with other editors has, on far too many occasions, had a detrimental effect on the overall goal of writing an encyclopedia, indeed to the extent that it has distracted from his excellent work on article content. Dozens of examples of this problematic behavior follow, though more could easily have been added.

Evidence of disputed behavior

ArbCom case (brief background)

On June 21st, 2009 the Obama articles arbitration case closed. The Arbitration Committee determined (unanimously) that ChildofMidnight "deleted and/or refactored comments made by other parties on the Barack Obama talk page, and engaged in attacking the actions of other editors," among other findings of fact. In the remedies to the case, ChildofMidnight was topic banned from Obama-related articles, admonished for edit warring and limited to a revert restriction, and subject to a (mutual) interaction ban with two other editors (a third mutual interaction restriction (scroll down) was imposed by the community in August).

While there was a significant amount of problematic behavior by ChildofMidnight (and, it should be said, other editors) leading up to the closing of the Obama articles arbitration case, none of that is detailed below. All of the following evidence presented in this RfC takes place after the close of the case in late June and runs right up to the present, thus demonstrating an ongoing (and lengthy) pattern.

Attacks and "unsourced" accusations against other editors

The single biggest user conduct issue with ChildofMidnight is, in the end, quite simple—he has a tendency to lash out at others who "wrong" him in some way or with whom he disagrees. Below is just a sampling of the sort of personal attacks and accusations ChildofMidnight has levied (often over and over again) against a wide swath of Wikipedia editors in good standing (23 editors mentioned by name by ChildofMidnight in the diffs below, and this list is not exhaustive). As is generally the rule, in literally none of these referenced remarks does ChildofMidnight provide evidence for the serious accusations he makes. Also the primary preparer of the RfC did not find any efforts by ChildofMidnight to enter into dispute resolution with any of the editors about whom he has complained. (Note: as with other diffs in this RfC, these are in somewhat random order but cover roughly the past six months.)

1. [1] -- "...irrelevant attacks being made against me by RD232 and Tarc, two editors with a long history of disruption on political articles....suffered the relentless trolling, baiting and disruption engaged in by Tarc and others."
2. [2] -- "monstrous attack by pov pushing policy abusers like Tarc, Allstarecho and Bigtimepeace" (also referred to as "assholes" and "monkeys")
3. [3] [4] -- @ Future Perfect at Sunrise; "abusive and disruptive," "FPaS's punitive and arrogant insistence on staying a course...", "his refusal to engage in common sense mediation and restraint instead of punitive club wielding. Let's put a stop to barbarianism on Wikipedia. It starts with those holding the clubs."
4. [5] [6] [7] [8] -- @ Georgewilliamherbert; "bullying harassment and intimidation of good faith editors", "your pursuing of vendettas," "pointily and disruptively reopened after it was closed...it's acts like that that are abusive and disruptive in prolonging the drama", "Is an indefinite block of Georgewilliamherbert off the table? Because I still think it's a good idea. Better safe than sorry!", "If we're not going to indefinitely block Georgewilliamherbert let's at least but him on a civility restriction to stop him from issuing abusive civility blocks to good faith editors whose comments he doesn't like."
5. [9] -- Complains that Who then was a gentleman used the phrase "abusive drama-mongers", and says "I trust he will be sorted out," exactly 31 minutes after ChildofMidnight himself accused another editor of being "abusive" and "drama mongering"
6. [10] [11] -- @ Protonk; "Braying about others "escalating" situations where you and your cronies have silenced and caged someone you disagree with outside the community shows a level of arrogance and willfull neglect that just isn't right and that you should be embarassed about," "Try to do a better job in the future instead of acting like an arrogant jerk. Thanks."
7. [12] -- @ The Magnificent Clean-keeper; "My advice to Grundle would be to avoid trolls and disruptive admins. Speaking of which, I have not interest in conversing you. I find your behavior despicable."
8. [13] [14] [15] -- regarding Tarc; "relentless antagonism and trolling", "in order to take shots at me and pursue a vendetta", "I trust Tarc's trolling will be met with an appropriate response.", "his ridiculous disruption has been caused and encouraged by you and other POV pushers..."
9. [16] -- @ John Carter; "I hope that further action won't be required to have you comply with our rules John Carter. Your abusive behavior is totally unacceptable."
10. [17] -- regarding Cirt; "outrageous hypocrisy by Cirt", "He's also made numerous statements ascribing bad faith to others and accusing them of collusion."
11. [18] -- "A block of Cirt and a desysop may be appropriate at this point. John Carter is involved and along with GWH has a long history of disruptive and unhelpful history of stoking the flames of dispute instead of trying to resolve issues collegially."
12. [19] -- "Requested desysop of Cirt, GWH, and John Carter" [ANI thread heading], "The extraordinarily disruptive and confrontational approach to editing taken by these admins is inconsistent with our civility policy and our core values."
13. [20] -- @ Coren; "Please refrain from bullying, threatening, and intimidating behavior...This kind of incivility is unacceptable especially from an Arb who is involved in the issue. You should try showing more respect for your fellow editors...I hope this will be the last warning that is necessary and that you will refrain from engaging in that kind of hostility in the future."
14. [21] -- "Should we block him, Chillum, Sarek of Vulcan, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert indefinitely just to be on the safe side until we can sort this issue out? Prevention of harm to the encyclopedia is paramount, and (compromised or not) those accounts have certainly caused enough drama."
15. [22] -- "This block is disgusting. And the use of it for grudges by Chillum is just another in a long line of his abusive behavior."
16. [23] "I don't want to get mixed up with Tarc [or] FPaS here, I think their efforts at drama mongering, trolling and troublemaking speak for themselves."
17. [24] -- @ 4wajzkd02; "That you've gone ahead and proactively hidden his past comments is wrong (that's the mildest word I can come up for it)...Given your politics and point of view it seems you have cause to celebrate already without sticking your fingers in his eyes."
18. [25] -- "If you’d like to help (instead of hurt) efforts to rein in the harassing trolling that goes on here, I encourage you to keep an eye on Tarc, Mathsci, and WMC."
19. [26] [27] -- regarding William M. Connolley; "Will Connolley's continued trouble making...probably needs to be addressed. Is he not banned yet?", "...it's not acceptable for you to carry on with your anti-intellectual campaign of censorship and smears against people whose views you dispute. Thanks!"
20. [28] -- @ FayssalF; "you have played a large part in encouraging the battlefield mentality and the score settling disruption we've seen...your decisions have been punitive, haven't benefitted the encyclopedia, haven't prevented disruption...you're punishing people for rules you won't even sign on to...Perhaps this is your idea of justice and useful action, but it most certainly isn't mine. That you would encourage the very abuses you accuse others of engaging in seems clownish."
21. [29] [30] [31] -- regarding SarekOfVulcan; "This seems highly abusive...looks like the worst kind of baiting and admin abuse", "I'm shocked, truly, that you would think your hounding and pursuit appropriate even after an ANI report accusing you of stalking and harassment. LEAVE HIM ALONE. Got it?", "If Sarek continues to bully and intimidate editors with his tools when he's involved in disputes with them he will find himself the subject of an Arbcom proceeding. Cheers."
22. [32] [33] [34] -- regarding Sandstein; "look at Sandstein's abusive behavior which he still hasn't apologized for. He's also made no effort to correct the many inaccuracies and falsehoods he states. So maybe it's worth fighting some of these battles?", "You are no different from other book burners, censors, and those who abide other forms of abuse and harassment like rape, beatings, torture and other thuggery used to intimidate and silence people.", "You and the other abusive stalkers have a lot in common. But from everything I can tell you are a very sad, lonely and antisocial individual. Maybe lashing out at people you disagree with makes you feel better? I suggest you try collegial collaboration and discussion to resolve disputes in the future. You might even make a freind. If you aren't competent or honest enough to do that I understand."
23. [35] -- @ FloNight; "Your flagrant disregard for our most basic values and core policies is disheartening. Encouraging packs of editors to harass, stalk and intimidate those they disagree with is very damaging to Wikipedia."
24. [36] -- @ Carcharoth; "You’ve turned your back on assuming good faith and encouraging collegial discussion to resolve disputes. Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior. I hold you personally responsible for your role in condoning these grotesque and abusive actions."
25. [37] -- @ Tanthalas39; "Tan, I'm sorry to say that you just come across as a complete ass."
26. [38] -- @ Bigtimepeace; "You may support these thugs because you agree with their content position, but there's no excuse for this kind of hounding and censorship. You've made your views clear and I think your behavior has been disgraceful, hateful and intolerant. Take care."
27. [39] -- @ Wizardman; "You've managed to censor contributors of certain viewpoints..."
28. "I don't like singleing people out" (comment to Jimbo)
29. [40] @Jayron32: "It's also distressing to me that you appear to have signed on with the POV pushers in hounding and targeting editors with whom they disagree over political issues. That type of censorship and abuse is totally unaccpetable and I was truly very surprised to see you taking part in it."
30. If the one immediately above this was not enough see [41], which was posted while this RFC was active. Again, accusations of misbehavior and political bias, without so much as one diff to back it up. --Jayron32 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General defamation of other contributors not specified

In addition to the above comments about specific editors, ChildofMidnight regularly refers to nameless groups, individuals, and a supposed general milieu who/which he feels are undermining the project, thus turning the editing environment into a battleground and at times further inflaming existing disputes.

1. [42] "I will not remain silence in the face of grotesque censorship and abuse now or ever. Some things are worth fighting for and I will never kowtow to ignorant thugs."
2. [43] "swamp characters and POV pushing game players who infest Wikipedia's political coverage"
3. [44] "stalking, harassing, and hounding of editors with minority viewpoints that promotes censorship"
4. [45] "...even if the political climate on this site wasn't as partisan and antagonistic to those who don't toe the dominant liberal/leftist world view"
5. [46] "I have tried to be circumspect. But if others feel it would be helpful to go into more detail on the history of secret tribunals and black op type operations conducted on and off Wikipedia I am happy to do so." (offered, in a rather tone-deaf manner, in a thread about anonymous harassment of editor ScienceApologist)
6. [47] "Many (most?) people on Wikipedia come across to me as borderline psycopathic and potentially dangerous."
7. [48] "...we should all be calling out the bullies and censors. The civility policy and our BLP policies don't exist to be twisted into cudgels used by POV pushers against anyone who doesn't happen to share their beliefs..."
8. [49] "That seems like an Orwellian approach worthy of Fahrenheit 451 that would be more in line with the authoritarian book burning employed by fascists that an unbiased encyclopedia."
9. [50] "We can't allow abusive individuals to attack and censor those they disagree with in order to push their personal opinions and perspectives. This kind of intimidation, harassment, misuse of admin tools, and other bullying is unacceptable. Those who engage in this sort of disruption to as a means of censorship should be blocked indefinitely..."
10. [51] "...you don't seem to understand that there are packs of POV pushing editors with admin friends on Wikipedia. If you allow youself to be baited into reacting to their taunts and trolling their allies will be more than happy to block you."
11. [52] "of course there's the usual bullying from one of Wikipedia's abusive, antagonistic and disruptive wikicops"
12. [53] "The Orwellian policies here encouraged his behavior and only punished him for disclosing to others who he was. That's how Wiki works. Tell the truth get punished...But the liars, cheats, and incompetents continue to wander around causing disruptions and aiding POV pushers in their damaging campaigns. It's all pretty disgusting."
13. [54] "This whole circus reeks of hypocrisy and abuse, but as per Orwellian rules on Wiki the accused are the ones who tried to do right."
14. [55] "Such is the way of Wiki justice. If we repeat newspeaky statements like "an indefinite block is not forever" enough times does it start to make sense?....I hope George Orwell is laughing as he looks down on us."
15. [56] "I've been dragged to these boards numerous times by various POV pushing fuckwits posting lies, distortions and other nonsense after coming after me because they disagree with the way I edited something. Once or twice a dimwitted admin, unable to comprehend the simplest of situations, even blocks me." (coming, ironically, on the heels of a Wikiquette alert about ChildofMidnight)
16. [57] [58] [59] [60] [see altered images in fourth diff] -- All of these relate to an incident where ChildofMidnight placed images of Nazis on his talk page and likened problems on Wikipedia to Nazi suppression. When others objected strongly to the images, ChildofMidnight responded with the following remarks, among others: "These harassers [and] stalkers are like Nazis.", "Those who stand with censors, intimidators and harassers on Wikipedia are very much like the appeasers that stood silent and avoided confrontation with nazis. The analogy is right on target and I stand by it 100%...Silence = death...I'm not going to shut up about the intolerance, censorship and hate this thuggery is fostering.", "They didn't start rounding up the "undesirables" right away. First they spread their propaganda and consolidated power. An encyclopedia that contains false, misleading and innacurate information and that is governed by bullies and liars is a real danger. I haven't suggested it's in any way equivalent to slaughtering people. But it's very much like book burning.", "Never forget. Oppose censorship, harassment, and intimidation. Those who remain silent about these abuses are part of the problem"

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:BATTLE
3. WP:ATTACK
4. WP:AGF
5. WP:DISPUTE

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. [61] User:Bigtimepeace pointing out problematic behavior that had been mentioned numerous times before, asking if it's something ChildofMidnight can work on (see here for entire talk page thread including the preceding diff).
2. [62] [63] User:John Carter referencing a conflict between Redheylin and Cirt, which ultimately led to ChildofMidnight calling for the desysopping of Cirt, Georgewilliamherbert and John Carter here.
3. Final effort, after the draft of this RfC was largely completed, to avoid the need for a request for comment.
4. Other editors, not now certifying the RfC, who have commented directly to ChildofMidnight about his problematic behavior, or suggested that some sort of community action to address it might be needed, include the following (links are to their comments and are worth reviewing): Ched Davis; Deacon of Pndapetzim; DGG; Dougweller; Duae Quartunciae; Grsz11; Heimstern; Horologium; Jehochman; Jimbo Wales; Luna Santin; Matt57; Rd232; Shell Kinney; SirFozzie;Tznkai; Unionhawk; Unitanode

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. Attempt #1 (referenced in preceding section) rebuffed by ChildofMidnight with edit summary "not interested in further trolling and baiting from you Bigtimepeace."
2. Attempt #2 (referenced in preceding section) again rebuffed and turned against the editor citing problems with ChildofMidnight's behavior. [64] "Accusing someone of doing something that you are engaging in is hypocrisy. That's not a personal attack. And your history of disruptive and biased behavior towards good faith content contributors is totally unwelcome here.", also [65] "It should be noted that John Carter is involved and has a long history of disruptive and confrontational behavior that I have pointed out to him."
3. Attempt #3 (referenced in preceding section) again rejected by ChildofMidnight with edit summary "remove beligerent threat from Bigtimepeace who is treating Wikipedia as a battlegound to go after editors that don't share his perspective. The many arbcom violations on his talk page are unacceptable"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC) This RfC is a regrettable but I think necessary step at this time. It is my strong hope that this discussion can stay civil, produce some positive results for everyone concerned, and help to head off problems in the future.[reply]
2. -- John Carter (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - I think it is in everyone's best interests that this sort of discussion be had, and this may well be the only location in which the comments of all those involved can be given voice and, with luck, noted and responded to.[reply]
3. With regrets, certifying per this where I refactored a thread subtitle per WP:NPA. Wishing also to express great appreciation for ChildofMidnight's content contributions. Let's work this out in a mutually respectful dialog. Durova³⁸⁶ 19:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Just turn down the rhetoric and you'll be fine. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've noticed him several times, giving very dubious input on various issues. Whether this is an intentional attempt to troll, or whether it's accidental, I don't know, and it doesn't much matter. Friday (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. What Jehochman said. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Crossmr (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wknight94 ^talk 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Sandstein  22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. The allegations of bad faith are really quite outstanding. Here was one particularly good example, as I accused of being an "involved party" when I had never interacted with the editor in question, nor had even edited the topic-area (not once!). It's not so much the ABF as the sheer sloppiness in not bothering to take even a cursory look at my contribution history that really grates. CoM's default position seems to be that the sysops of this project are guilty of corruption, abuse, policy violations etc unless proven otherwise, which is both wrong and singularly unhelpful. I am not sufficiently familiar with the editor's back-story to make an informed comment about where this singular viewpoint originates from. Moreschi (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sole Soul (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jack Merridew 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC) — Anyone with a watchlist full of the usual pages will have noticed the many issues involving CoM. I've not had direct disputes with him but have seen many incidents where he was being disruptive, in battleground mode, &c. The material presented above contains bits I noticed at the time and much more that I'd not seen. I'm not so sure about the great content contributions, but have not really looked; bacon comes to mind and is rather less than impressive. Many have tried to resolve the issues to little effect. So, here we have a major DR step where he gets formal feedback and has a final chance to learn to listen to expressions of concern about his behaviour. As they say "Up to you."[reply]
11. Never edited the same articles that I know of, but I've been witness to the AN/I issues. I'm afraid CoM, although meaning well, unfortunately has exhibited a lack of self-awareness of how his efforts for reform are backfiring because of his behavior as shown above: the vague accusations without evidence, ABF, etc. Auntie E. 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. It would be helpful if CoM had the courtesy to the community to come and respond to the issues raised. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. What Jehochman said. --JN466 12:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Horologium (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Diffs like these [66][67] show that CoM continues to intervene inappropriately on project pages. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Grsz¹¹ 07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (Retro per HandThatFeeds. I've approached CoM about his butting in at ANI before, he doesn't get that he offers no good most of the time, and only shifts the discussion in ways it shouldn't have to go). Grsz¹¹ 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Per Jehochman --Shot info (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Way too many ANI discussions go off the rails when CoM arrives to disparage someone he doesn't like. Especially if the discussion is completely unrelated to their previous disputes. We need to reign in such actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. I've been inclined to draft this RfC myself. A thorough outline of an unfortunate – but hopefully redeemable – pattern of conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Given how many times I insisted that this RFC be made, I think it only fair that I show up out of my semi-retirement to endorse this opening statement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. --Jayron32 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. The user's behavior since this RFC was filed convinced me to endorse this summary. His failure to respond, and his fresh assumptions of bad faith indicate that the problems haven't been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Well, it's good that CoM has responded. Unfortunately, the response only supports the original allegations. PhGustaf (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. He can be a very disruptive editor, regularly arguing from assumptions of bad faith and outright misrepresentation. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Nsk92 (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Durova

Wikipedia has not been very successful at handling a dilemma that occurs among a small number of editors: excellent content contribution but subpar participation elsewhere. Two days ago the Arbitration Committee sitebanned one of them and they are currently very close to sitebanning another. Both of those people have written many featured articles and new articles. The rest of us should become better at bringing out the good while minimizing the disruption, instead of pointing to positive content work as if it excused the negatives.

No one gets a license to behave badly.

So although ChildofMidnight's article creations deserve applause, I am equally worried about this editor's participation at the administrative noticeboards. It often reads as if CoM skims and makes a snap judgment which s/he posts in inflammatory or abusive terms. Typically CoM asserts that an administrator is terribly wrong, then refuses to be swayed by evidence that the administrator has actually been very patient and thorough. This happens often enough that on occasions where CoM and I agree it embarrasses me, especially if ours is a minority opinion. There are probably quite a few people who skim discussions with the presumption that ChildofMidnight is in the wrong.

I hope there is a workable solution. If nothing better arises I would consider proposing a modified namespace ban with a screener function: in most of the Wikipedia namespace ChildofMidnight would need to submit proposed posts to someone who either approves, says no, or requires changes to remove snarks before the posts go onsite. I hope it prevents another siteban. Ideally, ChildofMidnight will take this RfC's feedback to heart and change course so that sanctions aren't necessary.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Durova³⁸⁶ 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree it's critical to point out that the situation with ChildofMidnight is just one example of the general problem of excellent content contribution/subpar participation elsewhere. It would be great if we could collectively get more creative about how to deal with these kind of situations, which are limited to a relative few but which nonetheless tend to be extremely distracting. Durova's possible proposal here (namespace ban with a screener for comments) is the kind of thing we might need to consider at some point in the future, not only for this situation but perhaps others as well. We definitely have not come up with any silver bullets so far. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm not convinced about the "screener"; it's logical, but it seems too much like censorship, and editors should be able contribute reasonably and effectively (most of the time, at least) without something like this. If in situations such as these a temporary namespace or DR forum ban is necessary, I'd hope that this experience would give the editor a chance to rethink their approach, even if it means acting deliberately as their own screener (eg not posting contentious comments directly, but sending them to self as an email and posting after that). Rd232 ^talk 09:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. There are problems with ChildofMidnight's interactions elsewhere, but the main problems seem to stem from his participation at administrative forums. Perhaps a self-enforced restriction to not participate in administrative forums would be helpful? LK (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree that problem is with CoM's unfounded accusations of bad faith at noticeboards, not his content. Still must be resolved. --Jayron32 20:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. Treats noticeboards as battlegrounds. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gladys J Cortez

During the issue that led to Grundle's brief indef, I decided to stop by CoM's talkpage just to throw in a couple of pennies. Here's the large part of what I said, and it sums up what I've seen of User:ChildofMidnight.

The points you raise are sometimes very good, and you sometimes provide a needed contrarian opinion. Also, you tend to stand up for the little guy, which is a cause near to my own heart. HOWEVER: here's why I had to think about supporting (the abortive ban discussion about CoM) for even a moment: Your points, even the good ones (sometimes ESPECIALLY the good ones) are couched in hyperbolic, practically purple prose, and too often your defenses come off sounding like rants. It's hugely offputting for the people who WANT to agree with you, and just consolidates the poor opinion your detractors already have. Your words would be so much more valuable (or perhaps, "valued") if you just turned down the adjectives by about 95%. Stop seeing corruption where all there is is bumbling, incomplete knowledge, inexperience; stop seeing malice when all there is is marginal dumbassery. Seriously. I think it would serve you very, very well. (But as I said--grain of whatever.) GJC

(And this is coming from me, the one who was just plinked by an Arb for going a bit bonkers with the hyperbole!). Maybe it's my outrageous leftwingery showing its true colors (snerk), but I like to believe the best in people; and for the most part, with very specific and narrowly-defined exceptions, I believe Wikipedia admins are decent folks with nothing but good motives for what they do. CoM, however, seems to believe the opposite. That's not an offense of any sort; in fact, a lack of rose-colored eyewear is essential to keeping people in power focussed on the greater good, sometimes, if it seems they may have lost that focus on their own. However, expressing those criticisms as voluminously and as extravagantly as he(?sorry, CoM, I don't actually know your gender!) does can be seen as walking a very thin line. In fact, sometimes that mode of expression falls right OFF the line, and into the Gooey Green Pit of Mean.

To CoM: I really don't (despite, alas, our total diametric opposition over almost every non-WP, real-world issue that matters to me) want to see you get banned/blocked/sanctioned/silenced. I'm a dedicated, if quiet, crap-stirrer myself. You just have to stir CAREFULLY, because if you don't, you get splashed. In your case, you're stirring so wildly, I'm afraid you might get drowned. GJC 21:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. GJC 21:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. LadyofShalott 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wknight94 ^talk 02:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Rd232 ^talk 09:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sole Soul (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --JN466 12:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. especially the blockquote --Jayron32 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. especially the blockquote. (I only know you in regards to Badagnani.) I often agree with the gist of what you have to say, but not the way you phrase it. Using understatement is often more powerful than using emphasis. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved Collect

This is an unusual exercise in trying for many bites at one apple. Many of the "attacks" are marginal as evidence at best, and are given vastly undue weight in this RFC. If these are the strongest examples one can find, the argument is quite weak. The ArbCom case (Obama pages) cited dealt with a great many editors, and CoM was not found to be the worst offender. That said, the punishment by ArbCom is in the past as far as actions to be rightfully considered by an RFC/U. CoM has performed admirably in many areas as an editor, and this exercise will not alter that as a fact. What it can do, however, is discourage all editors from having the desire to civilly (and yes, most of the attacks are "civil" by WP standards) attempt to maintain NPOV is POV laden articles. One trout is about the right level for action here. Collect (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Collect (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Perhaps the rhetoric could be turned down a bit and perhaps some time off of ANI would be of benefit, but this fellow is very much a net positive to the project IMO. My additional suggestion would be to adhere to the excellent and eloquent advice given by Gladys J Cortez one view above -- Samir 07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I certainly haven't read all the diffs presented above, but the ones I have read don't look that bad to me. They may be expressing unpopular or disagreeable opinions, or unwelcome criticism, but I don't see most of them as seriously incivil. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decidedly Inside view by Tarc

As my name is generously sprinkled throughout the "Attacks..." section, I don't qualify for an "outside" view, so here we go with an insider's view. This all began the moment that CoM was (cribbing from Bob Ryan) shocked, shocked, when he was found by ArbCom to be one of several aggressors in the June 09 Obama case, and not a victim as he honestly believed. It has been one long and disruptive downward spiral since then, all circling around a single aspect of this that it is critical to acknowledge in this proceeding; the Wikipedia is a bastion of slanted liberalism that ChildofMidnight must counter with the introduction of the conservative point of view. This is why we are here, and this is why CoM has lashed out at Wales, ArbCom, admins, and regular users alike as noted above.

This behavior needs to be brought to and end. The best way of accomplishing that is for ChildofMidnight to realize that articles are governed here by consensus and by policy, that simply having a contrary point of view is not enough to warrant inclusion in an article, esp. a contentious or polarized one. A ban from policy-related pages should be a last resort, as all it does is bottle the problem rather than solve it.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inside view by Rd232

Tarc may be correct about the origins of CoM's behaviour, but for the purposes of this RfC (focussing on voluntary agreements), let's leave that to one side. (After all, such differences of political opinion are par for the Wikipedia course, yet it's rare that an RfC like this is necessary.)

Let's focus on what, for me, is the key issue in this RfC - the manner in which CoM participates in dispute resolution fora. I'll note that some of his contributions are helpful, non-confrontational, non-judgemental. However, he has difficulty providing similar contributions when he is familiar with the editors involved, and far too often drags in his own, unrelated issues with those editors, without taking the details of the situation seriously and being willing to AGF, particularly on the part of those acting with a certain authority. This is unhelpful both to resolving the proximate dispute, and to dealing with the wider issue being dragged in. At times CoM seems to want to be the Washington Post circa 1974 ("Watergate!"); too often he comes off like the National Enquirer (insert your own witticism here).

Here's my advice:

• (a) Try hard to tone it down. The manner in which you make your points is detrimental to your points being taken seriously. (So is the frequency with which you bring the points up. Less is more.)
• (b) Exercise your WP:AGF muscle - at times it seems quite atrophied. Don't assume that people you disagree with on content, and with whom you've had conflicts in dispute resolution in the past, are out to get you and people of your political stripe. Do remember that errors can be honestly made (including by you, something to bear in mind in terms of how definitively you reach conclusions about an issue under discussion).
• (c) where appropriate, back up claims with diffs. If you can't, don't make them (at least, until you can).
• (d) don't jump into dispute resolution issues you're not familiar with as if you're an expert on the situation - just because you've come across some of the editors before doesn't entitle you to jump to decisive conclusions (and, when your conclusions aren't adhered to immediately, to declare "hounding" and the like)
• (e) where appropriate, don't just repeatedly make general complaints whenever it seems slightly relevant to do so; do something constructive about the alleged misbehaviour, i.e. use dispute resolution as appropriate.
• (f) If the problem seems systemic, try and come up with ideas to improve the system, rather than holding grudges against the people operating within it.

Bottom line, think a bit more about whether and how to comment. Sometimes it helps to draft something, take a break, and come back and read it with fresh eyes.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Well put. Durova³⁸⁶ 16:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Hellz yeah. GJC 19:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fluent and well-written. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agreed. --NellieBly (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Very good advice, which I think all editors should strive to follow. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree --Shot info (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Very well stated. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agreed. I've seen CoM jump into several ANI discussions, solely for the purpose of attacking editors he's familiar with. That really needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Jayron32 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Cailil ^talk 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Good advice. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. I'll consent, mainly to item (a). Drmies (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view by Grundle2600

I agree with ChildofMidnight's claim that there are editors who are trying to censor the encyclopedia by removing relevant, well sourced information. Every edit war that I have ever been involved in was of the type where I added relevant, well sourced material, and other people kept erasing it.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mjroots

I first came across CoM at ANI. I have to say that the vast majority of input from CoM there is not constructive. I do not like to see editors being blocked where that course of action is avoidable. Therefore I suggest that CoM seriously considers taking a three-month break from posting at ANI, with the exception of being permitted to reply to any ANI thread raised against him/her or being able to raise an issue where conduct directed against him/her warrants the raising of such conduct at ANI. Once the break is over, CoM should carefully consider his/her response before posting on any ANI thread and not make any accusations without providing evidence to support the accusation.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢
3. LK (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by TreasuryTag

I recently came across the phrase, "If you are here to treat Wikipedia like a country in need of a libertarian centered human-rights struggle, you're missing the point." This sums up any number of editors' approaches to the project, including (I think) ChildofMidnight's. Their behaviour needs to come into line with our policies on civility etc., and they need to start acting as if they're interested in helping to collaboratively build an encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢
2. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Jayron32 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jtrainor

For what it's worth, CoM is very much correct about the ongoing bias on Obama-related articles. That being said, the methods he's chosen in the past to do something about this havn't been the most productive.

It is also true that there are people who hound him and stalk his contribs so that they can drag him to WP:ANI at any and every opportunity in an attempt to get rid of him permanently. Some of CoM's conduct is bad, yes, but it has been greatly overblown by those who dislike him and want to get rid of him.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jtrainor (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. œ^™ 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse with respect to the second paragraph, with no opinion on the first, as I have not read most Obama-related articles. Ray^Talk 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by OlEnglish

CoM is not uncivil, just opinionated, and I've seen much worse rhetoric. Cherry-picking the worst of statements from someone as outspoken as CoM far overshadows their positive contributions. -- œ^™ 06:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. œ^™ 13:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Collect (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ray^Talk 00:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. jmcw (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Horologium

Much of what I have to say has been said by others, but (at least for me) there is no political component to my disagreements with CoM; on the contrary, I tend to agree with him more often than not. (Oh, dear: a conservative admin; lock up your daughters sons.) My problem with CoM is his constant willingness to assume bad faith of administrators for their actions at the drop of a hat, and his combative attitude in general on the noticeboards, especially when dealing with Obama-related topics. I have supported topic bans (blocking him from editing project space) on two separate occasions. I was flamed for suggesting it the first time[68], and the discussion was prematurely shut down on the second occasion, ostensibly because topic bans from project space were outside of the purview of the community (which was incorrect; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request input on topic ban and the sections following that link). CoM does excellent work outside project space, but his interactions with other editors on the noticeboards is extraordinarily disruptive. He is not the only editor with similar issues, but he is the most disruptive of the bunch. I don't want to see him leave (and I don't want him banned outright), but the drama he stirs up (particularly when engaging with editors whose politics differ from his) is not helpful, and a brief vacation from the administrative noticeboards is (IMO) a very good idea. Horologium (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Horologium (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't see him as the "most disruptive of the bunch", but other than that, Grsz¹¹ 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Sandstein  17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although slightly more than a "brief" vacation from the dramaboards is called for, I think. Moreschi (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Qualified endorsement. It's important to express that most of this website's administrators put policies ahead of politics when they log in. Durova³⁹¹ 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. LK (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Jayron32 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Late Night) Outside view by Brilliantine

Any good (ANI-type) exchange of views should involve no more than five posts in total per pair of participants. Any more and people aren't getting their point across efficiently. I think you'd have a much better time if you disengaged after that stage (or any other such arbitrary figure you may choose.) Brilliantine (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Brilliantine (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fair point, actually. Moreschi (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. A good point for anybody. Grsz¹¹ 17:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Thanks to everyone who commented here and elsewhere in good faith with constructive suggestions. It's unfortunate that this RfC was initiated by Bigtimepeace who has repeatedly come after editors who don't share his political perspective, who has repeatedly broken his promise to stop coming after me, and who has been a party to numerous arbcom violations on his talk page. The timing of this RfC is not coincidental. Bigtimepeace (and John Carter) don't have any unresolved dispute with me and they don't edit the same areas of the encyclopedia that I do. They just disagree with me ideologically and object to my asking them to abide by our core policies.

Civil and uncivil POV pushing and advocacy are a real problem on Wikipedia. It's troubling that many of the comments here come from editors who admit they have no knowledge or experience with the disputes being discussed. Please come help out in the trenches so you don't come off as hypocrites with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitide offering opinions out of ignorance. Disruptive POV pushers have resorted to finding any means available to smear and come after me. I hope that more of you will speak out against the constant trolling and disruption engaged in by Tarc, Mathsci and others.

I comment where I can offer constructive input and in situations where I am familiar with the circumstances or when I believe I can offer an insight that may be helpful. I understand that my tone sometimes rubs editors the wrong way, but when there are abusive policy violations carried out by editors and admins we need editors to speak up so we can get the problems fixed. It's disheartening that so few of you are willing to make that effort.

I also object to characterizations and mischaracterizations of my political viewpoints. My opinions are not relevant to my editing and I have been consistent and open in trying to improve the encyclopedia while abiding by our policies. If, as some of you suggest, you hold the opposite views that I do, then you support degrading the environment, limiting opportunities and education for children, and believe that the underpriveleged shouldn't be provided economic opportunities.

Please stop the abusive labeling and come edit in good faith with me so we can improve the encyclopedia in a collaborative and collegial manner. It's time to put a stop to the abusive behaviors and disruptions created by those seeking to propagandize our content. I don't recall ever editing with the vast majority of those criticizing me, while most of those offering support have edited with me. This is telling.

Clearly the baiting, smearing, harassment, stalking, bullying, and intimidation have taken a toll and my image has suffered among those who aren't familiar with me or my editing. This reflects an unfortunate but effective strategy being used as a means of censorship. Those seeking to limit my involvement here should consider very very carefully their role in encouraging these disruptions and abuses.

I have read the comments offered here and I will take them into consideration going forward. I hope that you will all do the same.

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

While there have been a small number of editors disagreeing completely with the whole concept of this RfC, the overwhelming majority of editors participating here have reiterated the same points in a variety of ways. Almost everyone here agrees that CoM is an excellent editor in general when it comes to working on and creating articles. However, these same editors point out that he has difficulty interacting in a productive manner, especially on project pages and with almost anyone in a perceived position of authority.

The main areas of concern are that CoM:

1. Has regular and ongoing problem with making accusations against other editors (specifically and in general) without providing any supporting evidence
2. Has failed to follow proper dispute resolution steps in almost all (if not all) cases
3. Is apparently unwilling to accept any constructive criticism or suggestions provided in good faith by multiple editors who tried to help for at least the last six months
4. Is very often contributing to discussions in an unhelpful and/or irrelevant manner

The most common suggestion here (and in the comments from various editors who have attempted to work with CoM) is to tone things down a lot. This one point was mentioned (in one form or another) far more often than any other suggestion. Going hand-in-hand with that was the suggestion of seriously thinking about the tone of comments before posting them, and perhaps not posting immediately and instead coming back to them after allowing some time to carefully consider them and how they might be received.

The final suggestion, mentioned a couple or three times, was a self-imposed vacation of a few months from posting to any policy talk page or any administrative noticeboards, using that time to focus back on article work (which everyone agrees you do exceptionally well at).

It is strongly suggested that you carefully review these conclusions and use the information here to modify your actions onwiki in such a way as to make your interactions with other editors more harmonious and productive. You are a good editor, and everyone here would rather work productively with you than to lose an otherwise very productive editor. Please take these suggestions as constructive and positive. Thank you for your participation (to everyone, including Child of Midnight). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]