Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

ChildofMidnight

FINAL (3/39/9); closed per WP:SNOW by EVula at 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present ChildofMidnight for RfA. Since joining in November 2008, he's racked up over seventeen thousand edits. He's a proficient vandal fighter, making sure to leave warnings. This is a highly trustworthy user, who would be a positive force with the mop. DougsTech (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you DougsTech for your nomination. Your selectivity and high standards are well known and respected, and I appreciate the confidence you have expressed in my judgement and good character with this nomination.

I am committed to improving Wikipedia and have worked in various areas to this end. I've done a lot of article editing, formatting and reorganization. I've made numerous content additions, including rescuing troubled articles and starting new ones on important but neglected subjects. I've done qutie a bit of work on new page patrol. I've participated in many AfD discussions and contributed to various notice boards.

Many editors will have noticed that I haven't shied away from controversial topics, and while I have certainly made some mistakes, I've tried to be accountable and reasonable in working through challenges as they arise. I always try to work in a collegial and collaborative way with my fellow editors, even as I've wrestled with some thorny issues and challenges. This has sometimes been challenging in subject areas where opinions and emotions are vigorous, but I think these experiences give me unique insights and a foundation of experience to be a helpful contributor to disagreements between other editors as I have a good understanding the dispute resolution process.

Thanks to everyone who has taken an itnerest in my nomination, and I'm sorry for the delay in accepting it. I know there's going to be an enormous rush to support but please take turns and try not to push ahead in line.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

I would like to focus on areas where I have some expertise. These are mostly in the areas of article creation and deletion procedures. I will use my tools to assist in reviewing speedy deletions, moving deleted articles to userspace when appropriate, assisting in closing AfDs, deleting non-controversial pages for page moves and deleting leftover talk pages after AfDs.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

I'm most proud of my efforts to help editors that are having trouble and the work I've done taking on difficult and contentious subjects. Certainly creating articles and collaborating with others on non-controversial content and making improvements is also satisfying, but that comes easier. And I think the many small fixes are also very important even though they don't receive the glory of DYK honors or article creator honors.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :) Can I just let the opposes speak for themselves? Seriously though, I've tried to make sure our article coverage is inclusive of content that represents notable viewpoints, including those in the minority. So, for example, I've been working on expanding the access to and inclusion of notable opposition and criticisms of Barack Obama. He's very popular and a lot of editors are protective of our content covering him, but I think it's important that contrary views and opinions also be represented. I've also been a party to disputes on other exciting subject areas like Ayn Rand, Barney Frank, and stick candy. I've also tried to lend a hand to editors who I felt were pushed into a corner (often by their own actions) but who I felt deserved a fair shake and an opportunity to become productive members of our community. I think diversity is important. And my candidacy is in some ways a test of whether editors who have opinions and who seek to resolve thorny issues can still be Admins. I don't pretend I've handled every situation perfectly, or even well. I've made some mistakes, but I've acted in good faith and in the interests of Wikipedia even where I understood it was going to be an uphill climb. I think that's valuable even though I think there will be legitimate concerns raised about whether I've been involved in too much drama.

Additional question from iridescent

4. Explain in your own words what's going on here (permalink in case it archives during this RFA; it's currently live on ANI)?

Barney Frank is a political lightning rod. He's a liberal Representative in the U.S. House and the leading Democrat on the Banking committee that oversees the financial sector including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I've been working to improve the introductory paragraphs to better reflect his life's work and the article contents. I've taken the same approach I use on every article I work on, but it's been very contentious. I like clear and concise introductions that cover all the bases. In this case there has been a lot of political passion and it remains unresolved, but we're working through it. Specifically, I think his career and major achievements need to be covered. There has been resistance to saying he's an advocate for gay rights and to mentioning his leading and controversial role in the financial sector. If one side of the partisan debate is included, I think it's important to provide our readers with the other side as well, not in equal portions, but so as not to biased or advocate one particular point of view. I've started an RfC and it's being mediated (it's the poor mediator's first time so he has his work cut out for him, but a second mediator has stepped in to assist). I'm always happy to compromise, and I think the consensus and middleground too often gets obscured by frustration and personal attacks that poison the discussion. That's where I think mediators and Admins can be helpful, although that's not where I will be working as an Admin since it's an area I'm involved.

Additional question from FlyingToaster

5. Given that DougsTech is arguably the most controversial user in recent RfA history, what led you to specifically ask for his nomination?

Essentially, I wanted to stand on my own two feet as a candidate. I appreciate the support I've received from other editors and administrators, but as much as teamwork and advocacy have their place, I'd like to be judged on my merits as an individual. I was curious what DougsTech would say if I asked him. I followed the controversy over the standardized wording of his opposition to RfA candidates, and I think both sides make good arguments. I do respect that he's willing to take some heat for a principle he thinks is important. I was also curious whether he would be willing to be a nom at all and how we would assess my candidacy in particular. Here's a link to our discussion:[1] I removed my initial response shortly after posting it and made this comment instead:[2]. I think my chances of passing an RfA are slim to none, and I'd be perfectly happy to have other good candidates succeed. DougsTech transcluded the nom right away. I would have preferred a bit more time to discuss and assess, but some good questions were asked and I think it's a worthwhile process so I'm going ahead with it. Some other issues arose at around the same time as the initial nom that were quite time consuming, so after being advised there was no time pressure I've waited until now to proceed. Although I have some concerns that my nom may be turned into a circus, I have no interest in promoting drama and I think it's reasonable for the community to have a chance to render a verdict on whether I'd make a good Admin. I'm confident I would, but obviously I've made some mistakes and I understand a reluctance to give the tools to someone who has been involved in disputes. As I said, I haven't always handled things perfectly, but having taken on some difficult challenges and taken a lot of heat, I think I've done a good job and demonstrated a committment to Wikipedia.

Additional questions from — Ched :  ? 

6. Given the link that Iridescent has posted, you've obviously attracted a following of dissenters in a short time. How would you be inclined to wield the admin. block powers should you become involved in a heated debate? Feel free to comment on both content debates and conversations on users talk pages.

I'm here to make the encyclopedia better. Any effort on my part to go after anyone who disagrees with me or to use my position to advance a particular POV wouldn't be helpful. I want to be an Admin for all editors, and I want everyone to feel that I'm on their side and pulling for them. I think it's very important that disruptions not interfere with the article building process, but it would be inappropriate to use my tools in any content area in which I'm personally involved. For the sake of appearances and perception, I would not use my tools in political arenas, even where there was a relatively clear cut issue. There are other admins who can handle those situations. I'm aware that my involvement as an Admin in political disputes could do more to cause drama than to eliminate it. I'm here to be constructive so that wouldn't be anything I'm interested in being part of. There are contentious areas where I hope to continue to work as an editor to improve the encyclopedia, but I will not use my tools in any conflicts that arise there. Impartiality and fairness are vital, and upholding high standards is important to me.

Additional questions from — rootology (C)(T)

7. What are your views on WP:BLP? Specifically, do you feel that the current usage of BLP to protect these articles is too strict, too lenient, or just right, and why?

We need to be vigilant to prevent character assasination and damaging content that violates our guidelines from being put into biographies. I think the guidelines are appropriate, but I understand there are major concerns about enforcement and supervision. My only personal experience with difficulty in reigning in edits that seem inappropriate is on Irfan Yusuf. So I guess I'm okay with our current usage, but bo system is perfect and I'm open to refinements and suggestions on how we can better prevent biographies from being abused to attack people. I'd be happy to help in that discussion if someone wants my involvement or input. :) At the same time I have no objection to fairly including notable controversies and well sourced statements on public figures, and I think our guidelines are clear and reasonable in delineating what content is appropriate. We certainly need to make sure we don't allow articles to be used maliciously for the purpose of targeting or tarnishing someone.

8. Do you support any form of controls on editing, such as Flagged Protection, Flagged Revisions, or any variant? Why, or why not?

I've followed the debate over flagged revisions, and I suppose it will come off as wishy washy when I say I'm just not sure who's right. I think some trial of flagged revisions might be worthwhile, but I share the concerns of those who don't want to overturn a culture of equal opportunity editing. There are a lot of anonymous editors who do great work, and I'd also be concerned about the time considerations and procedural issues involved in reviewing revisions made by anonymous editors. But I'm open to trying it on a limited basis.

9. What is the most valuable type of editor on Wikipedia?

I've been impressed with the diversity here. There are editors who do technical issues and a lot of clean up. There are people who work mostly on articles. There are those (especially administrators) who do the patrolling and maintenance. And there are those working to refine our policies and practices. My area of interest and expertise is mostly in article building. But it takes all types to build a great encyclopedia, and thank goodness we have people taking on the various tasks needed. It's sometimes a messy system, but we seem to get things right most of the time and there are processes in place to fix mistakes. I think the differing perspectives help make sure we keep content from reflecting any one perspective. It's great that there is international interest and involvement, and input from a lot of unique and interesting contributors.

10. If a user has a strong personal opinion or belief on something--politics, religion, anything--should you be able to detect any of that in the actual "Article" space edits of a user? Why, or why not?

No and yes. We're human. No two people write the same way. We strive to be neutral (or at least the overwhelming majority here does) and that helps make Wikipedia rigorous and useful. Collaboration and the wiki approach (constant improvement, at least ideally) also helps in that effort. But I don't think it's possible to strip the humanity out of the process all together. And I wouldn't want the article content written by robots. I'm committed to keeping bias out, but some color and character is part of all communication, and in some cases it can keep readers interested. There are judgement calls, word choices, and stylistic decisions. Whether we use color or colours and aubergine or eggplants, it's a melting pot and as long as we can keep the advocacy out, and make sure we don't let too much spice into any of the dishes, I think Wikipedia will live on without absolute uniformity.

11. Related to the preceding question, do you have any areas you have edited on this or any other Wikipedia username ever that you are especially passionate, fervent, or ideological about in real life? Will you be willing to list these here and publically vow to not use your admin tools in ANY capacity on these topics, and make that binding somehow, such as Administrator Recall?

Yes. Everything. I'm a passionate person. I love ideas. I love thinking about things, and wrestling with wording, trying to figure out how to organize and communicate information in the most coherent and well organized way possible. I've worked on contentious political subjects and I will not use my tools in disputes involving those subject areas. I can't think of anything else where perception or appearances of impartiality would make it problematic to use my tools, but I would certainly do my best to refrain from using my tools in areas where I'm personally involved in editing or in relation to subjects I'm actively interested in and working on. Frankly, except for vandals, I'm a very very cautious enforcer anyway. So I would try to use my tools only as a last resort where there isn't another way to help an editor or to resolve a situation so constructive collaboration can work. Protecting a page or polite requests and discussion or getting outside involvement can also be effective. Truly the thing I'm most passionate about is accuracy and making sure Wikipedia includes the variety of notable viewpoints that exists. So where there are strong political consideration and my aversion to censorship is strongest I've committed to not using my tools. Our policy is that Wikipedia is not censored, but sometimes it takes effort to keep it that way.

Followup question from roux

12. - in light of FlyingToaster's question, can you please explain this diff, specifically the fact that you are, quote, "counting on you and at least one or two of your meat puppets to support me", especially considering that user is currently banned? Please likewise explain this and this (particularly, quote, "and how I haven't been blocked yet is in fact a bit of a mystery truth be told").

ScienceApologist and I were involved in a disagreement over content months ago. We eventually worked through it, and while our interests and opinions often differ, we have a respect for each other. I think Wikipedia should be fun. So even though he's blocked, I was posting a joke on his page out of friendliness. I do the same with other friends. Here's a follow-up post I made on his page if it helps clarify anything [3].

Questions from GlassCobra

13. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

I would ask the editor to show they are serious by working in their userspace for a while and listing proposed edits or starting an article. They need to take a break an their actions clearly indicate a block was warranted. So abiding by it without complaint would itself demonstrate some good faith, and I would encourage them to show some by acting in good faith.

14. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

I like the idea of accountability. Unfortunately sometimes well intentioned processes get abused. It seems that there are in place methods of weeding out the Admin gone awry. In the heat of dispute sometimes decisions are made hastily, but where there was appropriate deliberation and a reasonable request from well established editors I would certainly consider giving up the "bit".

15. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?

One of the areas where I've made well meaning efforts but soemtimes made mistakes is trying to help and stick up for editors in trouble. I certainly need to redouble my efforts to communicate in the most civil and respectful way, especially as an Administrator. Asking an editor to be patient so that any concerns can be discussed is reasonable. Encouraging an editor to take be patient after the initial block would have been better. It's important to step away when we're frustrated, doubly so as an Admin. There's no hurry to rush to judgement. Edits can always be reverted, so taking time to get impartial input and ensure that there has been appropriate discussion is important.

Questions from Grsz11

16. Under what circumstances would you block an editor on an article that you were involved with?

Basically never. Once I've taken a position and have a stake in something, I think it makes it difficult to be viewed as impartial and appearances are important. If my only involvement is in mediating a dispute, that's different. And even there I think caution and restraint are important. We all get frustrated, but that's a bad time to speak up and an even worse time to take administrative action. I think admins are most effective on subject they don't care about, so they can be totally impartial. Sometimes this creates a learning curve since they don't know the history or the content issues, but the rules for behavior and dispute resolution are clear no matter who is "right" or "wrong".

17. Under what circumstances would you protect a page that you have been involved with?

I wouldn't. I would request a neutral party be contacted to assess the situation, or let the parties know I was going to seek one out. Appearances matter and maintaining the highest standards of impartiality is important. Things don't always work out "right", especially not immediately, but we have to live with an imperfect world even on Wikipedia. :) "Knowing" the right answer isn't enough, and getting a second opinion is far better than leaving someone feeling slighted and abused. It sometimes takes time to work through a situation.

Question from Scjessey

18. Would you consider blocking an editor who accused another editor of homophobia? (diff)

I would ask them to refactor their statement and to refrain from making personal attacks. That was an unwise statement on my part, even though I did not directly accuse anyone of homophobia. My statement escalated the conflict and wasn't helpful. I was frustrated and I should have stepped away from the dispute.

Question from Wikidemon

19. You recently commented about a block, and the blocking administrator, on the page of a blocked user.[4][5] Do you stand behind those comments, and how would you handle the situation if you came upon it as an administrator?

No. I made a mistake. I had been following the situation and it frustrated me when an editor followed the advice of those disputing his edits and was then blocked for it. But I should have waited until I could discuss the issues more calmly and respectfully. My heart was in the right place, I was trying to stick up for someone and let them know that their contributions and efforts are valued. But I failed to take into account the effect my aggressive behavior had on the other editor, in this case the admin. Wikipedia should be fun, and while I will continue to try to help editors having a tough time, I am more aware that sticking up for someone having trouble must be done in a way that's civil and respectful of the other parties.

Question from Collect

20. Some have cast you as being partisan in political articles. Would there be any possibility that you would keep the administrator hat off when dealing with such articles, or at least refrain from using it in any conceivably partisan manner?

When you know someone's an administrator the perception of them is different. So the hat can never be totally taken off. That's why I think it's very important to be aware and sensitive to editors who feel attacked or intimidated. As I've said before, I wouldn't use the tools in any dispute or enforcement involving political content. I also think as an admin is "armed" in a way that other editors are not, that it's important to be especially sensitive and restrained in communicating when there are differences of opinion. I'm human. I'm not perfect, but I try to be accountable and to fix things where I've messed up and to learn for the next time. So some day in the future, admin or not, I will mess up again. But I will do my very best to maintain the utmost restrain and to refrain from using the tools any time I'm frustrated, and to fix any mistakes I make. I won't use my tools at all in relation to editors working on political subjects. I think that's only fair, even where there's a clear cut issue needing admin intervention, it's worth getting a second opinion from someone who is perceived as impartial so there won't be added drama.

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

21. Do you think we have enough admins?

I have worked with several editors who would make good administrators. I think it's helpful to have the work of admins shared among more editors. Occasionally there is a rift or a perception of a rift between admins and editors, so I think sharing the workload and easing the burden might be helpful in allowing admins the opportunity to do a bit more article editing and contributing without feeling that there's not enough time to do so, or that needed maintenance will suffer. Wikipedia is very communal, so I think it's good to share responsibility and prevent anyone from feeling they have to take on special responsibilities or deal disputes all the time.

Optional question from Tempodivalse:

22. What is your understanding of consensus? How, as an administrator, would you determine whether consensus does or does not exist? I'm asking you this because, as an administrator, you will inevitably come over a situation where you will have to judge consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in a deletion discussion, article content dispute, etc.

General comments

• Links for ChildofMidnight: ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ChildofMidnight can be found here.
• Promote ChildofMidnight (bureaucrats only)
• No more questions plzkthx. Let's hold off asking more questions for now. CoM's got a slew to work through and this hasn't gone live yet. Thanks! FlyingToaster 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Toaster, I don't mind the questions, if that makes a difference. They all seem like good ones so far. I'm a bit busy at the moment so won't get a chance to address them or proceed with the nom immediately, but I welcome anyone who wants to raise a question. I defer to your judgement, though, if you think allowing additional ones is inappropriate at this time. Cheers. And thanks to everyone for taking the time to drop in and take an interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification CoM - I didn't mean to speak for you, but was just worried that you might be getting a bit overwhelmed. But if you're good, so are we! :D FlyingToaster 00:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is perfectly okay for any candidate running for any election on Wiki not to answer or ignore to given questions that s/he considers inappropriate, baiting, insulting, uncontructive etc.--Caspian blue 00:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In theory, yes. In practice? Perhaps not. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ChildofMidnight before commenting.

Discussion

• For those who prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Has done good work despite the topic bans. -download | sign! 04:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   What topic bans? I'm always the last to know about these things! :) Thanks for the support. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Support ChildofMidnight is an intelligent and sensible editor whose strength is building contents on cuisine and cultural subjects (look at his shinny 28 DYKs). He also has a decent sense of humor and suave/persuasive communication skills that could be de-escalating squally situations. He has meditated some cases with patience on difficult editors. (look at how he got the nomination from the rising RfA star) Although he took some straightforward approaches in dealing with tough editors for Oh! OMG Obama cases, I strongly believe that Midnight would not abuse the admin bits because he is a sensible editor. He is not afraid of getting himself muddy for disputes that need immediate attention. I think he is a qualified candidate than dramaboard residents who just sit and judge others.--Caspian blue 05:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support This is a tough one but, on the balance, I think COM will make a good admin. That COM has faith in the encyclopedia is well evidenced by the strong positions taken on balance in contentious articles. The answers to questions are excellent and I don't think that he/she will abuse the tools (see responses to q 16 an 17 in particular). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Experience with this user, in particular their actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama and comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jerusalem21 and seeing their comments all over Talk:Barack Obama indicate that Child of Midnight would be a disruptive administrator, not follow the rules and guidelines, and let personal biases influence administrative judgments. He is too much of a loose cannon to trust with any significant power or authority, there would be nothing gained from having COM as an admin, and much to be lost. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Yeah, no - way too much drama, way too much pointiness, topicban, way too much editwarring, and utter non-answer to my question. Also the very odd asking for a nom, stating in various places that he had 'stumbled into' a nomination, then delaying it for weeks. Not admin criteria by any stretch of the imagination. //roux   04:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. "We need to be vigilant to prevent character assasination and damaging content that violates our guidelines from being put into biographies. I think the guidelines are appropriate, but I understand there are major concerns about enforcement and supervision. My only personal experience with difficulty in reigning in edits that seem inappropriate is on Irfan Yusuf." Need I say more? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose No. That was completely unnecessary and I could never support someone who goes about with this sort of mentality. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Can you be a little more specific about what's wrong with that post? I know I've seen this diff before, but I don't remember the context anymore, and personally I don't see anything terrible in there (CoM has a sarcastic sense of humor, the meatpuppet comment doesn't mean anything). I haven't decided yet whether I will support or oppose this RfA, I just wanted to hear more from this because I'm not sure why exactly you're opposing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   I think that it's becuase he asked SA to nom him? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sure I'll elaborate. One, I'm not comfortable with this " If I go through with the nom I'm counting on you and at least one or two of your meat puppets to support me. " Second, the part about "I'm afraid there's not much left to cling to." To me it came off as rude, curt, and as if ChildofMidnight was trying to make a passive agressive sort of comment. Also, this was one of the things that I though was a bit over the top. I could point out a few more things that I don't care for, but most of the concerns have already been posted and at this point it would be overkill. Icestorm815 • Talk 06:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Beat the nom oppose Your answers to the questions were sufficient for me to oppose, particularly: No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :) Can I just let the opposes speak for themselves? I need not get into your tendentious editing style or your infatuation with drama. ThemFromSpace 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Not a chance — R² 05:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose: Based on this circular argument at Tina Turner, followed by a similar dispute at Michael Jackson (in which CoM attempted to gain the support of Raul to delist Michael Jackson as FA because they found "the procedure on the FAR page...very complicated") I am mortified by this user's conduct with other editors as well as their approach to biographies of living people. The user has shown an incapability to distinguish the verifiable definition of a single word from their own personal opinion. As such, I have no faith the user is capable of properly interpreting broadly worded policies such as WP:BLP, WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV, and most importantly WP:OWN. Due to a lack of understanding on how to open something as basic as WP:FAR and their history of aggressive, habitually Condescending attitudes, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust this user with administrative tools. In my 2-3 years on wikipedia I have never felt so strongly about opposing anyone. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The issues with POV-pushing and warring are disconcerting and enough for me to oppose. Besides this you also didn't do yourself any favors by having DougsTech nominate you. Valley2city^‽ 06:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   I think question 21 covers the Dougstech issue. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose - As a productive editor frequently at the receiving end of ChildofMidnight's vexatious misrepresentations, edit warring, obstruction of process, accusations of bad faith, incitement and shielding of problem editors, and calls for my being banned or blocked, I hate to think what ChildofMidnight would do if actually given the power to do what he/she frequently advocates. COM edit wars has edit warred articles to the point of edit protection again and again, claims as a justification consensus that does not exist, accuses article regulars of disruption for disagreeing, and jumpsed onto pages of blocked and warned users to praise the problem editors while berating in harsh language the administrators trying to deal with them. I have seen editors do worse, but most of those editors are now indeffed or banned. Of those that remain, Of all the good faith editors here this one has without doubt been since the day they joined the most disagreeable biggest thorn in my side and waster of productive time here on the project. All in all, an utter misunderstanding or refusal to come to terms with Wikipedia's behavior policies. ChildofMidnight is a capable, intelligent editor with the skills to be a good Wikipedian. And I think ChildofMidnight could be a very good admin too. That he/she chooses has sometimes done otherwise, and the history and evidence of that, are best reserved for the ongoing Arbcom case in which they are a partywe are both parties. Wikidemon (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Lengthy unrelated discussion moved to talk. Landon1980 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Based on statements such as calling the leads of several featured and good articles "crap" [6] and terrible [7], pronouncing other performers/producers to be peons [8], insisting that the article contents supported an unsourced use of the descriptor "icon" regarding a singer coupled with posting google search pages [9] suggesting other editors use it to source the content he/she added. He/she then took the same issues to other FA/GA articles, including Michael Jackson, and even approached one of the heads of the WP:FA team to do a runabout to getting the Jackson article delisted. Much obstinance and refusal to cooperate, displaying even a basic grasp of citation formatting, and in the end, only getting around to an apology regarding behavior after the RfA began. What may have been the icing on the cake was the post made here, which ignored the points made by every person who commented on the issues, including that we challenged ChildofMidnight's insertion of the word "icon", not based on our personal opinion, but on lack of sourcing, and the dismissal of the entire issue because he/she "had to fix the leads of other articles (GA and FA if you can believe it!!!)" - including the aforementioned attempted Michael Jackson delisting. He/she then proceeded to encourage us to read WP:LEAD, "so we're all on the same page as far as policy goes", despite our having tried for 4 days to make clear his/her changes were not in accordance with that. It all ended with encouragement to open a request for comment to resolve the issues - although it was only ChildofMidnight who was on one side, because "I can't do all the work myself after all". I'm still trying to figure that one out. One of my first impressions was "POV warrior" and I've seen nothing in the time since to change that opinion. Did I say oppose?? No? Oppose. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose - Firstly I'm concerned about the user (DougsTech (talk · contribs)) that nominated ChildofMidnight. For the user to think that we already have too many admins, it's absurd that the user would then nominate someone. As to this nomination, secondly, I'm opposing this due to the blatant canvassing by ChildofMidnight not once but twice. How does one "stumble" into a possible run for Admin when one is THE one that asked someone else to nominate them? Additionally, ChildofMidnight's recent and multiple violations of WP:REFACTOR (on user talk pages; he calls it spelling corrections but when you change around someone's comment to something totally different than what they said.. well..), WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:OWN and WP:3RR as shown here prevent me from supporting this nomination. Tendentious and disruptive editing is unacceptable, even more so by an Admin. I have sooooooo much more I want to say about this user but I'll just leave it at this.- ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose - I only ever comment here if I feel strongly, and I feel strongly about this nomination. I've only encountered the candidate at Tina Turner and Talk:Tina Turner and found the editing style tendentious and the conversation at the talk page very evasive in that the candidate did not particularly address the specific concerns of other editors. This editor continued to push a highly biased viewpoint which was opposed by 4 other editors, who all gave clear reasons which cited examples and relevant policies. This editor's responses demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise or any understanding of WP:CONSENSUS or for that matter WP:NPOV. The comment regarding WP:GA standards - "Whoever is designating them as GA, if this statement is to be believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass." does not give me any faith that this editor respects other editors. Then, after this RfA began - a pseudo apology appears in the Talk:Tina Turner page in which the editor says sorry for the behaviour but maintains the POV stance. Usually I assume good faith, and I would like to here, but I see nothing to give me confidence. Question: "Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past....." Answer: "No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :)" - the short and correct answer to the question is obviously "yes". I can't take this candidate seriously when even a simple and direct question isn't given a serious and honest answer. Rossrs (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - My one interaction with the candidate was at an AfD a little over a week ago, where he did not seem to have examined the matter very carefully before commenting.[10][11] That's not a particularly big deal, but the issues other users have raised are harder to ignore. I'm also perplexed by his answer to question 18: I can't see any way to read the diff that doesn't indicate that he directly accused another user of homophobia. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 07:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    1. Hi Emufarmers. Those seem to be the same diff. I thought the artist was marginally notable so I suggested merging the comic in with his article. I'm not sure why you think I didn't investigate carefully. Can you clarify? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose - This editor, from what I have seen of his interactions with the community, produces a great deal of unneccessary drama, and I believe granting him the admin tools would only exarcebate this drama. Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per nom. But I do appreciate your thoughtful answer to my question. FlyingToaster 08:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
16. There are lots of things that I like about this candidacy. I think that asking Dougstech for a nomination despite not sharing his views on adminship was an interesting and amusing ploy; I respect having a clean block log despite some controversial work. But "Whoever is designating them as GA, if this statement is to be believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass" was only in February and I don't want admins who talk about fellow editors that way. Also re Political editing, a classic political tactic is to stereotype an opponent as primarily representing one ethnic, gender or geographic community and by implication not representing a large part of the electorate that elected them. If you're going to work on Political biographies you need to be able to spot subtle attacks like that. ϢereSpielChequers 08:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose CoM's statemnt above "My statement escalated the conflict and wasn't helpful. I was frustrated and I should have stepped away from the dispute." could apply equally to his/her involvement in the various Ayn Rand debates. There is no evidence that admin powers would not be used in support of a very clear political agenda or the trivial (the bacon cabal). The last thing you want is a player of games to have access to more tools. --Snowded (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - But absolutely not bothered in the least by the nom, and I see absolutely no reason why anyone else should be. Seems drama-prone, and the diffs and comments above lead me to believe that this candidate would be an inappropriate candidate for the bit at this time. If you were to come back and demonstrate that you had a good understanding of consensus, had moved away from the drama, had better policy knowledge, had improved your temperament, and generally moved on from the issues being presented here, I would consider supporting a future request. — neuro^(talk) 09:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong Oppose - Drama prone user who changes others talk page comments. As Neurolysis says, the diffs and comments make me feel that for the time being, he can't be trusted with the mop. I would suggest that he again reads Wikipedia's rules, understands them and probably re-nominates himself within 6-12 months. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

    Getting nominated by DougsTech is not a problem, but not getting his vote definitely is. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

20. As above. Majorly talk 09:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose I am not going to fill up these pages with diffs, so I am simply going to state that the candidate has not shown either the maturity or discipline to be trusted with the tools. Their judgement would also appear to be faulty in that they are proceeding with this request despite the obvious antipathy to them gaining the mop at this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose per nom. AvN 10:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
23. No thank you - drama central as it is - would be even worse if granted the tools.Pedro :  Chat  10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
24. I have serious concerns over your ability to remain neutral when using admin tools - you haven't had a great record of that as a regular editor, and the amount of drama that seems to follow you everywhere causes further worries. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose Recent events convince me this editor is not suitable. I had hoped that this RfA wouldn't take place as there has been enough drama in which this editor has been involved, and the outcome was never in question, even by the candidate. I'm not sure if this is faulty judgement as suggested by LessHeard vanU, or something else, but whatever, this RfA is unnecessary. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
26. BWAHAHAH...er, Oppose - But in all seriousness, really, no. Even if we set aside the questionable nomination by a controversial AfD participant and the nominee going about his merry business while the nomination festered for weeks before accepting, we're down to the main issue of behavior as an editor, which is IMO atrocious. Numerous AN/I filings on the nominee...and equally numerous, petty counter-filings in retaliation, the incessant edit warring in Barack Obama-related article space, leaping to the defense of some of the worst now-banned POV vandals. To avoid reinventing the wheel, many many links to diffs can be found at the active ArbCom case many of us are involved in. It appears that the nominee can be a productive editor in non-political areas, but even if we did not have all of the above self-created wiki-drama, I do not see a real rationale for why admin tools are necessary. This is not a user I would ever trust in a position of authority, one who regular users embroiled in disputes could turn to in good faith that they would be heard before an objective admin. Tarc (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose, Comments above by Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) and WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) raise some concerns, among others, however like Neurolysis (talk · contribs) I agree that the user does some positive work on this project in multiple capacities, and I'd consider supporting at a future RFA at some point. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose Per above.--Giants27 ^T/C 12:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Serious concerns about this user's judgement due to the two direct approaches to users the community obviously does not hold in good standing. I do not believe it would be wise to have an administrator who sees nothing wrong with an RfA nomination from DougsTech, Giano or ScienceApologist, all three of which have had genuinely worrying run-ins with the community.  GARDEN  12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose. From my own, limited experience with CoM, from reading the links provided here, checking CoM's credentials, contributions and from reading the contents of this page, I would not have confidence in CoM's ability to effectively wield the mop. Amongst my most serious concerns are CoM's involvement in the disputes listed above, in which CoM has taken a rather heated part, as shown in the links above- particularly as regards the Barney Frank article, where, without looking for consensus, CoM has repeatedly added in material known to be controversial. Next, the trivial attitude shown through comments such as let the opposers speak for themselves and the answer to the question concerning disputes leads me to believe that CoM has set out, at best, with no real interest in becoming an admin and, at worst, with the deliberate intention to deceive the community in the hope that nobody would bother to check credentials before commenting- in direct defiance of the guidelines which state that administrators "must have gained the trust of the community". One need look no further than the answer to question 3 in order to gauge the contempt in which this user holds the community whose trust has supposedly been earned. Further examples of the frivolity with which CoM treats this process are the blatant approaches of users canvassing for support and asking (of all people) DougsTech who is conspicuous at this debate only by absence for the nomination. Above all, CoM has deliberately avoided giving any solid answer to almost all of the questions, in particular the ones dealing with his editing. As such, I'm afraid I cannot possibly endorse this nomination- perhaps if CoM could keep his nose clean for a months, without causing major conflict and run for the right reasons, rather than the kudos, I could consider advocating his adminship. HJMitchell You rang? 12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose According to some of the other opposes you have been very disruptive in the past. Maybe if you had a time of about 9 months of no conflicts and then went to RFA maybe. You seem like a strong vandal fighter and have done lots of article work but like lots of editors have told me, it's not about the count.--(NGG) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose per the above opposes. Sorry, but I can't trust you with the tools. Timmeh! 13:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oh, Come On Joke nom from the start. PhGustaf (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

    Remember to assume good faith — care to back this up? I see no evidence that this is a joke. — neuro^(talk) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

34. Well now. After reading the brouhaha that ensued over this before transclusion, I am surprised this went live-- bad judgment? 19-- admitted bad judgment just this month. Too soon. 18 dropped the "troll" bomb. Too likely to fuel rather than extinguish a blaze. 1. Running through CSD to unilaterally reverse CSD's? We have DRV for that-- too likely to wheel war. I could be wrong, but I have the impression that the candidate is someone whose temperament is unsuited for adminship. Dlohcierekim 13:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose. Research of the above comments and even a quick glance at the Nominee's talk page produces a result contrary to the end goal. I give ChildofMidnight by strongest support to continue where he does his best, providing great content. He is a capable editor, full of energy, and needs to stay focused on benefiting the encyclopedia. I would suggest that his engaging in dramas and jabs, no matter the principle, results in a depreciation of his overall efforts. ChildofMidnight, please accept my comments as constructive criticism, and an effort to encourage your continued positive influence in the main space. --Preceding unsigned comment 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Extremely poor choice of nominator. Tan | 39 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose - Yes, I'm piling on. I am utterly baffled by the choice of nominator - and the nominator's willingness to boot. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose — silly nomination in the first place. ► RATEL ◄ 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
39. The judgment and behavioral issues are one thing, but the nomination leads me to question how seriously CoM takes this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Already seeing from these supports and opposes, I cannot go either way. On one end, he has done good work, but his attitude leaves much to be desired. Until It Sleeps 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak neutral - I came here to support, but the oppose arguments have me worried. Will return in a few days. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I realise some editors hate this section, but I hate piling on with opposes to RFAs that are obviously going to fail. I don't think ChildofMidnight should be an admin at this time, but I don't think he deserves the fiercely negative reception he's got so far either. When I saw how many opposes this RFA was getting, I assumed ChildofMidnight must be some kind of vandal or tendentious editor; but having taken a look at his edits, that doesn't seem to be the case. What I see is a user who has good intentions and does genuinely want to improve Wikipedia, but keeps getting into disputes and isn't very good at resolving them. Those disputes - for example, the edit-warring at Barney Frank - are enough to stop me from supporting this time. However, I recognise that ChildofMidnight has apologised for his past mistakes, and seems to be making improvements already - as shown, I think, by his answers to the questions. My advice to him would be: don't get too put off by the level of opposition here, but understand that you don't need to be an admin to be an effective contributor to Wikipedia. Moreover, not everyone who might make a good admin passes RFA. Basically, I think ChildofMidnight has a low chance of passing RFA, based on his previous behaviour; but that shouldn't stop him trying to be a good editor. What's important is not who has the tools, but who acts like an admin, in a calm, reasonable and collaborative manner. If you keep up to admin levels of behaviour, then people will admire and respect you accordingly; and who knows, maybe you'll eventually pass RFA after all. You're not there yet, but if you take the time to learn the rules and skills of working cooperatively, one day you might be. Robofish (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Moral Support Basically Not now. I like the breath of fresh air, I like the devotion and full-steam-ahead boldness, and indeed I intended to fully support the candidate in the beginning. I'll try to avoid a "tldr" post, and simply say that Child's response to Black Kite's deletion of the RfA, and a few of the ensuing comments left me doubtful of Child's judgment. I admire the desire to improve articles, and I think the project has benefited from your addition to our collective; however, I think you need to learn how to work from within the community more. It's good that you stick up for others, and that you don't get vindictive, but I think you need to learn that when the community as a whole has achieved consensus on a matter - it's best to accept that. We're not here to provide an amusement park, or your own personal fun-house. It's good that you enjoy what you do, as volunteers, we all should do likewise; but this isn't a project designed as a playground, and I think your lack of experience clouds your judgment at times. I encourage you to continue, and I won't pile-on oppose, but I think it's obvious that you're not ready to be an admin. yet. You don't have to go-along just to get along Child, but you do need to learn how to avoid going against the grain. I understand that your's is not the path of least resistance, but you don't have to alienate folks just to get to where you're going. Best of luck, and I look forward to working with you in the future. — Ched :  ?  07:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: I do like your responses to some tough questions too. ;) — Ched :  ?  07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   OK, you basically said what I was trying to, but put it better. :) I won't say more for now, except that while I do think ChildofMidnight might have what it takes to become an admin one day, I also hope he understands why this RFA is failing - and recognises that his opposers, while not particularly civil, do have legitimate complaints. He's going to have to accept that and work on his problem areas if he wants to pass RFA in future. Robofish (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Which of the opposers are you accusing of incivility? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral This is obviously not going to pass so I'm not going to oppose, but I don't feel that he would make a suitable administrator. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 09:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
6. I'm uncomfortable with the level of drama, that's all. Malinaccier (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral I would certainly have preferred a more absolute answer to my question, and WP definitely needs admins, and some of the opposes are not necessarily based on the issues we ought to be considering. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   What do you believe they are based on then? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral Opposes give me pause. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral - Even if a miracle were to take place, this RFA will fail. So, I'm not going to oppose. Please work on your problem areas. AdjustShift (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.