Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight

Stats

General user info
Username: ChildofMidnight
First edit: Nov 04, 2008 04:56:59
Unique articles edited: 4,615
Average edits per page: 3.76
Total edits (including deleted): 17,364
Deleted edits: 536
Live edits: 16,828
Namespace totals
Article	7355	43.71%
Talk	1767	10.50%
User	337	2.00%
User talk	4301	25.56%
Wikipedia	2618	15.56%
Wikipedia talk	120	0.71%
File	100	0.59%
File talk	10	0.06%
MediaWiki talk	3	0.02%
Template	3	0.02%
Template talk	211	1.25%
Category	3	0.02%
Month counts
2008/11	3280	
2008/12	3941	
2009/01	3541	
2009/02	2828	
2009/03	2372	
2009/04	866	
Logs
Pages moved: 114
Pages patrolled: 953
Files uploaded: 81
Top edited articles
Article

    * 99 - Burnt_Hair_Records
    * 93 - Bacon_mania
    * 87 - Ayn_Rand
    * 87 - Bush_ballad
    * 86 - Joan's_on_Third
    * 79 - Black_president_in_popular_culture_(United_States)
    * 71 - Poppy_seed
    * 71 - List_of_candies
    * 64 - Kishka_(food)
    * 59 - Drudge_Report


Talk

    * 137 - Ayn_Rand
    * 64 - Drudge_Report
    * 49 - Barack_Obama
    * 45 - List_of_Nazi_ideologues
    * 27 - Rashid_Khalidi
    * 26 - Kishka_(food)
    * 23 - Black_president_in_popular_culture_(United_States)
    * 21 - Tiki
    * 20 - Barney_Frank
    * 18 - Tina_Turner


User

    * 214 - ChildofMidnight
    * 16 - Kelapstick/Sandbox
    * 10 - Kelapstick/Sandbox5
    * 10 - Benshroyer/Sandbox/Petsense
    * 10 - ChildofMidnight/photos
    * 6 - MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_Reed_Cowan
    * 5 - Koshoes/Please_Y'self
    * 5 - Drmies
    * 3 - Ikip/NASCO_Properties
    * 3 - Micromaster/Sandbox


User talk

    * 938 - ChildofMidnight
    * 422 - Drmies
    * 148 - Warrington
    * 148 - Badagnani
    * 102 - Kelapstick
    * 95 - Scapler
    * 77 - Kelapstick/Archive_2
    * 73 - DGG
    * 68 - ScienceApologist
    * 63 - Bongomatic


Wikipedia

    * 201 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 34 - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
    * 18 - Articles_for_deletion/Subkulture
    * 18 - Articles_for_deletion/Fizzy_Blue_Bottles
    * 17 - Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand/Evidence
    * 17 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
    * 13 - Articles_for_deletion/Exopolitics_Institute
    * 13 - Articles_for_deletion/Bacon_mania
    * 13 - Articles_for_deletion/Bernard_Morris
    * 11 - Sandbox


Wikipedia talk

    * 42 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
    * 13 - Notability_(fiction)
    * 10 - Arbitration_Committee
    * 7 - Articles_for_deletion/Teleprompter_usage_by_Barack...
    * 6 - Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand/Proposed_decisio...
    * 4 - Notability_(restaurants)
    * 3 - Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Evidence
    * 3 - Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
    * 2 - WikiProject_Ships
    * 2 - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard


File

    * 4 - Banana_cake_(Banh_Chuoi).jpg
    * 4 - Chocolate_cake_with_chocolate_frosting_topped_with...
    * 2 - Clams_casino.jpg
    * 2 - Devil's_food_cake.jpg
    * 2 - Three_inch_ice_cream_cake_with_fruit_from_Singapor...
    * 2 - Maya_Lin_sculpture.jpg
    * 2 - Mini_bundt_cakes.jpg
    * 2 - Sauerbruch_Hutton_GSW_building.jpg
    * 2 - Ma-kok.jpg
    * 2 - Taro_sticks_for_sale.jpg


File talk

    * 3 - Taro_sticks_for_sale.jpg
    * 3 - Mystery_food_1.jpg
    * 1 - Ma-kok.jpg
    * 1 - Florda_State_Fair_2008.jpg
    * 1 - Pork_and_cherry_picnic_pie.jpg
    * 1 - Gallon_milk_jug.jpg


MediaWiki talk

    * 3 - Spam-whitelist


Template

    * 3 - X6


Template talk

    * 211 - Did_you_know


Category

    * 1 - AfD_debates_(Media_and_music)
    * 1 - Minnesotan_cuisine
    * 1 - Bacon_dishes

Off-RfA RfA questions

It would seem that some folks are unable to wait for CoM to respond to questions at the RfA itself. I'm not sure that's appropriate. LadyofShalott ^Weave 00:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

He asked to be nominated, and now he's taking his own sweet time to accept it, probably because he's got a pretty good sense of how it's going to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This was transcluded; it was then taken offline again. We're not psychic; we can't know an RFA is going to be un-transcluded when we comment on it. – iridescent 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to questioning him on his talk page with questions that belong here, not people jumping the gun on the actual RfA. LadyofShalott ^Weave 00:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It started with CB asking him what's taking him so long to officially approve of a nomination that he himself asked for, and that's a fair question, and where would you put that question besides his own talk page? Then he responded with his little joke (?) about "you guys and all your sock and meat puppets", so he opened the gates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about Tznkai's question, which is an RfA question. LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you're referring to this: [1] There are two different sections with the same label on that talk page, and your link jumps to the first one. Tz's question was in the second one. I took the liberty of renaming the second section: [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Way too much "coaching", baiting, and "rally the troops" going on here. Admins. should be chosen on their knowledge of policy, their ability to remain cool under fire, and their respect and adherence to policy and guidelines. Humor and sarcasm don't always play well in a text environment, but civility is a fundamental core requirement in our community. I'd expect nothing less should this RfA go live. — Ched :  ?  02:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is fundamental, but "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." is an oft-forgotten aspect of WP:AGF as well. There are bits and pieces of this whole affair, from asking a recent RfA disruptor to nominate him to asking a blocked user to meat-pupped support that suggest that this is an elaborate game, which is consuming the time and energies of far too many editors. Tarc (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have noticed that the nom for this RfA has contributed 4 words to many RfAs recently "Too many administrators currently". Personally, those 4 little words don't consume any of my time or energies, but I did notice that it seems to have gotten a rather large number of editor's collective shorts in a knot. I don't agree with the assessment of too many administrators, and I can only speak for myself, but I don't concern myself with the opinions of others at a RfA. I look to my own opinions after having researched the candidates qualifications, contributions, demeanor, attitude, and temper. If ChildofMidnight does decide to accept this RfA, then I'll review any diffs, contributions, and WP posts (s)he has made - that way, the only time and energies of mine that are expended are those which I voluntarily contribute. Just because someone doesn't share my views or opinions, doesn't mean I can't respect them. In fact, since this is an encyclopedic project which requires facts be verifiable by reliable secondary sources, their personal beliefs (in my eyes) have absolutely nothing to do with how they are able to function with a 3 extra abilities. (block, protect, and delete)

Do I share Doug's opinion that more admins reduces the effectiveness of our project's efforts? Of course not. I do believe a large community needs a small governing body to resolve differences, but I look to ArbCom for that function. Do I think that Doug's 4 little words cause a disruption? Nope, sorry. I've not seen a single RfA that was swayed in any way by his !vote, and I've received enough assurance from closing 'crats to know that they don't even add any undue weight to his words. Make no mistake, I do see a disruption. That disruption, in my opinion however, comes from the collective group-think that effectively says: "He's doesn't think like us - let's ban him". That "lynch-mob-mentality" has caused so much pain and suffering throughout our civilization's history, that seeing it in a supposedly well informed, free thinking, intelligent community just frightens the beejeebers out of me.

Getting back to COM - does (s)he bring controversy to the political articles (s)he contributes to? No doubt. How is this a bad thing? As long as civility is maintained and policy is adhered to, then I welcome these ideas. Stagnation has been the downfall of many a once popular organizations. I don't want to see our political articles become an echo of salon.com. I don't even want to see them mirror the drudgereport. I want to see both sides of things presented in a fair and equal manner - then I will decide what I think for myself. AGF? ... well, I'll look forward to this strong evidence that should dissuade me from adhering to a core policy. Meatpuppet? I guess if 2 people agree with you it's consensus - if they disagree then it's meatpuppetry. (I use the term "you" collectively - I'm not referring to any individual editor).

COM may decide to run tomorrow, next week, or not at all - that's his/her choice, and no one else's. (S)he shouldn't be baited, badgered, or taunted into the decision. Let him/her make these decisions based on his/her own convictions, and at the time of his/her own choosing. elaborate game indeed. pfft. It'll only become that if others turn it into such. — Ched :  ?  13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention drudgereport.com, Ched, because CoM displayed ample reason never to be allowed adminship at Drudge Report recently. ► RATEL ◄ 05:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that CoM, in the words of Fritz Perls, should "shit or get off the pot". Lose the drama queenage. PhGustaf (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further questions

(moved from main page)

Questions 16 and 17 were posted by editors who apparently have been in a dispute with the nominee very recently, and were posted after FlyingToaster already asked everyone to hold off on questions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The last seven questions were posted after FlyingToaster's request. Please review the two comments inviting further questions that follow FlyingToaster's request. Are you saying there is something wrong with the questions or that ChildofMidnight should not answer them? Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any suggestions about what should be done, I was just pointing out my concern with those questions. If you want to discuss this more, please take it to the talk page, because there's no point cluttering this page up more than it already has been. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. You seem to be questioning the questioners, and I see no point in that. ChildofMidnight has been in conflicts with many editors. Admins are expected to explain themselves and be responsive, particularly with people question their official acts. The questions Scjessey and I asked are phrased neutral, and fair questions of a future administrator because they relate directly to what ChildofMidnight might be expected to do as an admin. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's where we disagree; the questions struck me as a bit petty...that's subjective, though, and there's no point arguing over it, so we can agree to disagree. As for CoM's conflicts, I'm not trying to hide or gloss over anything—in fact, I don't know if I'll even be supporting him in this RfA (but I have to wait to see the answers to a few particular questions)—I'm just hoping the discussion can be kept civil. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You can be assured I will keep it civil, but asking these questions is not petty at all. The first question concerns the nominee's role in an incident that triggered a vigorous discussion on AN/I, and the other concerns the nominee publicly championing a blocked editor while challenging the blocking admin's actions and adminship on the blocked editor's talk page. TChildofMidnight's understanding of significant concrete situations in which he/she is currently involved is highly probative to how ChildofMidnight might see the role of an administrator. I reference a discussion that does not involve me directly, took great pains to phrase this neutrally, and do not state my own opinion either in the question or in this discussion. There is not much more I could do other than sitting this out entirely.Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I retract my comments. I guess we'll see what happens when it goes live. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This rewording is better, thank you. It's less of a "do you still beat your wife?" sort of question now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think Wikidemon's question is an excellent one, and I think Scjessey raises a legitimate question/ concern. I have spent a lot of time online in the last few days and my candidacy has created even more of a fuss than I anticipated, and I did expect some fierce opposition. I appreciate everyone's patience, and I hope that no one feels that I am delaying as some sort of tactic. In an ideal world I would like to have had more time to discuss the timing with DougsTech before the nomination was transcluded, but that's not how it worked out. There are still some things off-line and online that I want to get caught up with before going forward. Once that's done I'm going to try to work on the questions already asked so that I will be in a better position to address additional issues and questions that are sure to arise. I appreciate the interest taken in my nom and I look forward to the discussion. If my candidacy provides levity for some of my critics or helps some editors let off some steam and frustration at me, that's okay with me. At the same time, I have no intention of making the process into a circus and I hope that no one feels I am acting in a way that disrespects the process. I understand that some of my choices have caused consternation and I want to apologize to anyone who feels that my candidacy is an act of poorly timed and unnecessary drama. That was not my intention. I would also like to reassure everyone that I have the highest regard for Admins who do a lot of the nitty gritty work that keeps things running smoothly on Wikipedia. I appreciate their hard work and I want to take this opportunity to say THANK YOU!. I will do everything I can to answer all of the concerns raised. Also, if anyone feels that this may turn out to be a big mess, I remind them that there is no compulsion to participate or to watch. :) I noticed the other day that there is no article for rubbernecking, so that will be one of the article projects I look forward to undertaking, however this process turns out. As far as timing, I have been advised that there is no cause for urgency and I'd like to give the process the time and attention it requires. I don't expect to move forward before early next week at the earliest, and I can't promise that it will be that soon. Thanks again for the interest and the time taken to raise questions and concerns. I hope everyone has a great weekend and a fun Easter celebration if that is part of their plans. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think that was a very well-stated and reasonable response. I would urge everyone to give CoM all the time he needs to reflect and consider. Given all the history of disputes and so forth, I would find it extremely difficult to support CoM's candidacy; nevertheless, I intend to keep an open mind and await CoM's responses to the questions before committing myself one way or another. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues that needed to be addressed

In the course of this (potential) RfA nom some things came to my attention that I wasn't fully aware of as far as some of my past decision making is concerned. I have tried to take accountability for some of the mistakes I have made. There were some instances where my behavior wasn't appropriate. I was usually trying to stick up for someone having a difficult time, but I failed to consider the effect my aggresive response had on the other party involved. I remain concerned about editors who are having trouble and who may feel ganged up on. I think every editor should feel valued and appreciated. I also think it's very important that Wikipedia be fun and collegial. So I am distressed to discover that in some cases where my intention was to do the right thing, my lack of a broader perspective allowed me to focus too narrowly and to push back with a ferocity that was inappropriate and without the calmness and respectful discussion that the situations required.

We all get frustrated at times, but I need to do a better job in these circumstances. My approach has at times contributed to the sometimes bitey atmosphere here, and given my concern that Wikipedia be fun and collegial this is especially distressing to me. Obviously I need to do a much better job handling those situations.

Apologies given out in the context of an RfA are sometimes discounted, but I have tried to set things right as best I am able. If I have missed anyone I apologize. I understand that the mistakes on my part cast doubt on my fitness to serve as an Admin at this (or any) time, and obviously those are legitimate concerns. As numerous editors have invested time and effort in this process I am still intending to go forward. Thanks again for your patience. Please let me know if anyone has any questions.

I am still trying to wrap a few things up and then I will start on the questions that have already been asked. If there is some good to come out of my mistakes, I hope that other editors will see that even someone who is near perfect can at times mess up. :) It's best to acknowledge the mistakes, apologize (or apologise) and move forward. In all seriousness, I am truly sorry for my mistakes and oversights. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good way to proceed. Collect (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out of course that the nomination must be accepted and put live at RfA before answering the questions. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I had thought he could work on the questions and make his acceptance and answers live at the same time -- is there a protocol requiring a delay? Collect (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If he did them all at the same time. I was just pointing out how to save him some time and editing, instead of answering the 20 questions and then not actually accepting the nomination. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, maybe all the Supports, Opposes, Neutrals and WTF's could be gathered in a sub-page somewhere, and at such time as he accepts, if any, the votes could all be popped in there immediately too. That would be a real time saver. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you would never imply that some people do not vote on how good an admin a person will be, but use it as a "get even" tool of some sort? I trust that everyone will actually read responses and place the past in the past, and vote on that basis alone. Else we will get more stealth admins who create a long record of totally unimportant edits on unread articles as a sure way to reach adminship. IIRC, that has actually happened, but please I ask that no one take it as an attack. Collect (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The past is the best predictor of the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If the would-be admin has backed off from this ridiculous essay [3] I have yet to see it. Anyone who places the coddling of vandals ahead of encyclopedia content is unsuitable for adminship and will never, ever get my support. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Place the past in the past" ? Er, no, that is a rather silly thing to say. People are responsible for their own actions, and can and should be held accountable for them. Has nothing to with revenge or "getting even". Tarc (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Which rather is the reason why "alternate personas" so readily can become admins, whilst known quantities routinely get rejected for whatever reasons. 17K edits on major topics are likely to get a couple orders of magnitude more fights than edits on a novel by a 17th century writer which was found by googling "obscure" <g>. Note further my specific question 20 which, I think, addresses any real concerns. If he can separate the hats fully, I see no real problems. If he can not, then there are. Might we look at how he would act as an admin when discussing how he would act as an admin? Collect (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that if a user cannot even conduct themselves properly as a regular editor, I hold out little hope that they can change their ways just because they were nominated for adminship. Tarc (talk)

Is this still serious?

This was set to expire already. Is CoM still serious about this and just putting it off indefinitely, or can we get rid of this? Grsz¹¹ 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's serious, and CoM still plans on going through with it (see this, for example). But it's you guys' call on whether or not we should keep it open to wait for CoM's answers, or just close it and let CoM start a new one when he's ready. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Close it. Not only is it a joke, but he doesn't even know basic rules. Right now, he's in the midst of a discussion over his tendency to correct grammar and spelling in other peoples' comments - which I learned long ago is forbidden. Given that kind of ignorance, that guy is in no way ready to be an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pace new data from CoM, quit and go home. Thanks for the very important Snickers salad, though, CoM. PhGustaf (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If it did go forward, it would to use the colloquialism be buying a pig in a poke. Excuse the bacon joke but the context of one of CoM's main enthusiasms makes it irresistible --Snowded (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Except in this case, the "pig in the poke" would actually be a pig. ► RATEL ◄ 06:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

heh We're just all bobbleheads anyway. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM has been very active the past several days, throwing attacks all around the project. If he has enough time to respond as often as he did to various users, as well as an ANI section (on him, again) then he has had ample time to respond here. Please remove this, as it is a waste of time for everybody. If and when he is actually willing to put the time forward, he can easily re-initiate. This is WP:SNOW before even opening. Grsz¹¹ 11:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Here you see a fair-minded admin [4] telling him it's not going to happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the delay between creating a page like this and its transclusion as a healthy part of the RFA process and an opportunity for a candidate to delay until they think they are ready. Some candidates would in hindsight have benefited from leaving their pages untranscluded for a few months. I see little to be gained and much to be lost by setting a maximum time for such pages to sit untranscluded - remember Wiki is not paper. ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that the nominee asked for the nomination. What's he doing asking for it if he doesn't think he's "ready"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this really matter anymore? When the nominee transcludes the page you can !vote against him. I don't see why so much time needs to be spent discussing it over and over again here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because of the sense that he's jerking everybody around. I probably won't even bother to "vote", as he'll be buried with Opposes within minutes. He knows that, too, which is why he's not willing to approve it. And it doesn't actually take much time to type a few sentences, but thanks for your concern. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

←Just a reminder folks. I would have to think however, that this must be close to setting a record for a RfA talk page length, before it even went live. — Ched :  ?  14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So, assuming good faith, maybe he just wants to set that record. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that AGF is appropriate in deal:::ings with CoM. Isn't the standard something like, "Assume Good Faith, but don't be a maroon about it"? PhGustaf (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a maroon. Don't be an ignoranimus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

Nor a Nimrod, neither. PhGustaf (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find that part about: "Assume Good Faith, but don't be a maroon about it", perhaps it's in the IAR page. I do understand what you all are saying though. Perhaps when all the diffs are posted, I'll understand a bit better. Personally, I've never exchanged any cross words with CoM, but I'll be glad to read through some of the items if the RfA does go live. Maybe then the little common sense light-bulb will go on over my head. I'll continue to assume good faith until I see a reason not to, even if it means that I'd be considered a nimrod, moron, or ignoramus. ;( — Ched :  ?  23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - perhaps Gustaf meant to say macaroon. (Whose article, by the way, has one of the all-time lamest lead sentences.) Tvoz/talk 23:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We're Back?

Why? PhGustaf (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Zombies. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you decide to come back.--Caspian blue 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored this RFA because the candidate objected to its deletion. Please can everyone step back and give the candidate time to answer the questions - and please remember it has not yet been transcluded. ϢereSpielChequers 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't understand the deletion in the first place. Even if CoM declines to accept the nomination (whenever that happens), shouldn't stuff like this be archived instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere is a fine line between stickin' it to the man Mr. Smith Goes to Washington style and proving a point by self-immolation. The amount of challenge ChildofMidnight will encounter in this RfA will be staggering. I wonder if it is in his best interest and in the best interest of the RfA process to go through with it. Should ChildofMidnight wish to know what others think of him, there are other methods, such as Editor Review and RfC. What is the bare bones actual point of RfA? To determine candidates for adminship? At what point does the no become hell no then over our collective dead bodies no? Who needs to hear that? I realize this isn't a local softball game where a disparity of 10 points means the game is automatically won, but there is no good that can be done for Wikipedia or the candidate with dozens upon dozens of editors chiming in to detail all of a candidate's faults. This is starting to appear like an encounter session to join a cult, where the entire group puts one person in the middle and enumerates all his faults, breaking him down to a non-person, then building him back up the way they feel he should be. No matter what personal satisfaction might come at directing these pointed questions at ChildofMidnight, those in charge of/involved in RfA should ask themselves if this RfA is wise. I refused to participate in Ottava Rima's RfA for this reason, and I should have spoken up at that time. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference there would be that the candidate to join a cult would be required to actually and actively participate in the encounter session. So far, this seems to be more of a game. Asking questions and commenting appears to be a futile effort since the object of the attention hasn't really participated besides saying "Oh, yeah, I want that nomination kept alive." This non-participation has become disruptive in and of itself. LaVidaLoca (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that even if ChildofMidnight agrees to answer all these questions and go through this process, whose judgment is worse? His for being such a glutton for punishment or ours for allowing it to go on? We're teetering on sadomasochism without all the fun. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the community decides that having my (potential) RfA open for comments is too distracting, I'm okay with it being closed or userfied or whatever the community decides. We live and die by consensus here (figuratively speaking) and I'm happy to abide by the community's collective judgement. If people object to the nom because it will be drama filled, then I'm willing to avoid doing it all together. I understood the odds were long from the beginning. I think many good faith editors who I've worked with and who are willing to investigate thoroughly will support me. I think others have legitimate concerns about the length of my tenure and the number of disputes I've been involved in. There are also partisan POV pushers who will oppose based on their personal political opinions and perceptions.

My approach as an editor and a candidate has been consistent from the beginning: I'm here to improve the encyclopedia and I haven't shied away from thorny issues. I understand that the chances of my candidacy being successful are negligible at this point. I'm also confident I would make a good Admin, and I have no problem with leaving it up to the community to pass judgement. Being an Admin is not necessary for my working on and improving Wikipedia, and I will continue to do my best to fix things that need fixing and to add content where there are interesting subjects that aren't covered. I've been open about why I'm running and I have no interest in creating any drama. It does seem a tad unfair to blame me for the drama engaged in and conducted by others. I understand I'm at the center of it, even as I try to avoid participating in it, but I have no control over editors who like to go around stirring up trouble. All I can say is that I've tried to be open and straightforward about my intentions and the process. If and when it goes forward it's up to others to indicate their opinions. I have no objection to removing the nom if that's the best approach to reign in the craziness. My preference would be to ask those causing the drama to engage in more useful pursuits. In the meantime I'd really like to focus on the encyclopedia and article improvement rather than further discussion here, but if my input is need I will try to respond. If and when I'm ready, if my nom is still transcluded, I will go forward with it first by answering all the questions that have been asked. If it's not here any more, then there are other options and it can alway be restored. So it's not a big deal either way, but I did think that a unilateral deletion wasn't appropriate under the circumstances. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I may have misjudged CoM's intent, and desires to maintain this RfA, and its rather copious discussion page. Outside of this particular posting, I can't imagine that I would be compelled to add any additional comments. Perhaps if the RfA ever does go active, I'll consider adding any additional discussion there. — Ched :  ?  17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A moth to the flames Ched, a moth to the flames. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are being far too kind. Fuck her and throw her to the wolves. PhGustaf (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A Question for CoM

The Circus, by Georges Seurat, painted 1891. Original in Musée d'Orsay, Paris.

I see that this has been un-deleted and brought back to life per the request of CoM. Then I have a question for CoM. People have been waiting for you to either accept or not accept this nomination. While you asked this RFA nomination to be brought back, one of the main reasons it had been deleted was that the time for RFA acceptance had come and gone with no word from you whether to accept or not. The question is, could we have a clear answer as to if you accept or you do not accept. Or, if you do not want to answer just this moment, a clear date that you will make your decision and if that date comes and goes with no word, then this RFA is closed. Brothejr (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go forward when I'm good and ready. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Then close the request until you're ready. This should be deleted. Requests for adminship should not be some dramatic game to attract attention. When you open the request initially, you should be ready. II | (t - c) 19:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And with that arrogant brush-off, we are in serious DICK (and please, read through the essay before screaming "OMG NPA!") territory. This never should have been restored from deletion, and I fall to see anything in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship that states that the 7-day window start is conditional on a literal "yes I accept" post anyways. Clarification pls? Tarc (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated in the previous thread, if CoM decides not to accept the nomination I think it would be better to archive rather than delete. Apart from the useful questions and comments that would need to be recreated if CoM changes his mind at a future date, these pages should be accessible for others who intend to follow this path. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if and when this little amusement ride is finished, that it should be archived. There are a lot of comments on this page which are direct windows into various editors intent, judgment, and integrity. Many people may want to reference remarks made here in future RfA's, AN, ANI, or ArbCom threads. — Ched :  ?  20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is without a doubt, the most pointless discussion I have seen on Wikipedia in some time (and that says a LOT). All I see on this thread is an mind-boggling assortment of little vindictive whining children who lack the maturity to judge CoM's contributions beyond some slight or imagined slight that he gave them in the past. It has been a long, long time since I last saw an RfA where there's a mob that are drooling with anticipation for the transclusion so they can finally give Their Opinion.(many aren't bothering to even wait... obviously) The fact that this conversation is even taking place makes me extremely pessimistic about what Wikipedia has become. This isn't the first, and unfortunately won't be the last time that we have seen an amazingly good admin candidate shot down by the soapboxing of the impressively ignorant. If the mop was transferable, I would give CoM mine in a second. Trusilver 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Which leads one to wonder how you even got yours in the first place... judgement and all. ;] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, this drama was instigated entirely by CoM himself, not anyone here. Your characterization of the situation is grossly disingenuous and completely out of touch with reality. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Not knowing Trusilver, I have to wonder, and I have to AGF for now. But if I were to write a heavily sarcastic, reverse-psychology "praise" paragraph commenting on the subject, it would read pretty much like Trusilver's comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AGF indeed. It's our only lifeline. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And good God, what happened to you Allstar. I remember that you used to be a helluva good vandal whacker. I guess that was before you decided you wanted to Be Involved. Being involved is the greatest horror that can be delivered upon someone who does actual work around here. Being involved means that you have given up any real potential for contribution that you have left all in favor of being part of the epic (and eternal) struggle between the many, many tribes of Wikistupidity. I was in a conversation with a bureaucrat some months back where he (and if he reads this, I hope he isn't upset that I'm mentioning a private conversation publicly, even if I'm not naming him) said that he wished he could invoke WP:IAR and give CoM the mop without an RfA. That's the crux of the matter, I suppose. The most committed and competent among us have no chance of getting the mop because of the combined actions of the ignorant, vindictive and downright jealous.(yes, jealous. sorry to be blunt about that, I find my reservoir of good faith is hard to keep filled much anymore). I think if I had it all to do over again, I would never have accepted my RfA, I never would have Gotten Involved. I think if I had done that, I would still be merrily fighting vandalism and not have the bad taste in my mouth over the cumbersome bureaucracy that Wikipedia has become. Personally, I would prefer if CoM doesn't become an admin too. He would have my support if he did, probably the strongest support I have given an admin candidate since... well... ever. I noticed him less than a month after he joined Wikipedia and I consider him to be the kind of editor that only comes around once a year, if we are lucky. But coming from someone who made the same mistake himself, I think that in the long run, life is easier without the mop. Trusilver 07:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well way to go with attacking my contributions. Check my contribs. I'm still whacking vandals.. and creating articles.. and expanding articles.. and wikignome-ing.. the issue at hand is that someone with as much prejudice towards WP:NPOV as CoM has, isn't worthy of carrying the mop's jock strap much less the mop itself. Include that with the canvassing, edit warring, refactoring of other user's comments (he calls it spelling corrections), shit stirring - but blaming it all on everybody else - and a few other odds and ends and I can honestly say that his RfA, if he ever quits dicking around and actually transcludes it, will probably be the strongest oppose I have given an admin candidate since... well... ever. As far as jealousy? I'm not an admin, don't ever wish to be one, won't ever ask to be nominated to be one (unlike some people) and won't ever accept a nomination to be one. I won't ever kiss an admin's ring and sure don't want anyone else to kiss mine.. well, maybe this one but not the bureaucratic one. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are wastes of time, and then there are wastes of time.

it's

spring

when the world is puddle-wonderful

If you all don't want to edit an encyclopedia (there's one nearby, but not here), please go jump in a puddle. All of you. It will be much more pleasant than this. Jonathunder (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh great. e. e. cummings. I reiterate my earlier suggestion from Fritz Perls. The discussion is pretty dead when nobody can bring anybody who hasn't been dead for forty years into it. PhGustaf (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, when a random admin dived in to sling bad faith in support of CoM, that was pretty much the final straw for me. It's dead, Jim. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still convinced he was just being sarcastic. Because the alternative is too depressing to consider. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Adjustment of closing date and time

Resolved

Someone needs to adjust the closing date and time for this, now that it has gone live/active. I think I'll leave that little tid-bit to another though. — Ched :  ?  05:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Antagonistic comments

Can we please keep the antagonistic comments to ourselves? They are completely inappropriate. — neuro^(talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying the nom was/is a joke is a valid opinion, that many people share. Something tells me you must not be completely aware of the situation, and some of the comments COM made a week or so ago. I see you are trying to start a discussion at that particular !vote. Why not just let them have their opinion instead of trying to create drama? Landon1980 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Neuro, I'm not trying to imply you are trying to create drama, only that drama is the only result of such a discussion. Landon1980 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment was designed to deter more, not create discussion. Although, I suppose this is a talk page. :) — neuro^(talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the nomination ended in a blizzard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstain - If I weren't sure this comment would be deleted, I would add it to the RfA page. I voiced my opposition to ChildofMidnight's RfA in a thread above. ChildofMidnight is clearly not appropriate and everyone knows it. The entire process surrounding this RfA is so confounding it makes me think we're being used as some kind of fodder for humor or someone is trying to make a point about something, but poorly. ChildofMidnight is deliberately provocative in article edits, talk pages, and on ANI. I find its posts disrespectful but so inconsistent that it does not appear that this editor has an opinion or an agenda other than getting people upset.

We, however, do not seem to be much better. With an embarrassing enthusiasm those who watch RfA seemed to anticipate the opening of this nomination. Twenty-one questions before it opened? The string of opposes will be ridiculously long, and have already appeared to be gleeful in their tone. At some point common sense should prevail over almighty policy. A bureaucrat should close this RfA and a discussion should be held about how contentious and polemic RfAs should be managed in the future. I do not trust ChildofMidnight's own judgment to agree to this process. Allowing it to continue, I fear, will show us a very bad side of ourselves. At best, we will look like a consolidated group of bullies who delight in pointing out the faults of another editor with questionable judgment. At worst, this appears to be a social experiment. I see no benefit to ChildofMidnight, and no benefit to the Wikipedia community for this RfA to take place. I do not have to take part in it, and I am voicing my opinion about it here. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He came here with an agenda - that wikipedia is dominated by liberals. He will use the lopsided results here as "proof" of that theory. That's why he's doing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude. Was this comment even necessary? Maybe it is "dominated by liberals"...do we really know if it is or not? Heck, maybe it's dominated by conservatives! Geesh. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How does COM not getting the bit = Wikipedia is dominated liberals anyway? And why did you feel the need to say your first comment? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really helpful. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

@ everyone: The RfA is over, we all know each other's opinion, can we all move on? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to consider my nomination and especially for the many thoughtful and helpful comments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)