Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

Quick general thought from one of the RfC certifiers

I plan to basically stay in the background as this RfC runs and let other editors do the talking, but I wanted to make one comment at the outset even if it should somewhat go without saying.

For the most part there is not a lot of "context" provided for the problematic (as I see it) comments made by ChildofMidnight that are detailed in the "evidence of disputed behavior" section. These comments often took place as part of heated community arguments which some editors will recall. A central argument of this RfC (again, for me at least) would be that it is irrelevant whether ChildofMidnight was ultimately "right" or not with respect to some of his complaints. Rather it is his style/mode of discussion that is problematic. Personally I definitely agree with some of the complaints ChildofMidnight has made over time about actions taken by other editors, while at other times I think those complaints have been way off base. But obviously there are right ways and wrong ways to tell other editors that you take issue with something they have done, and that is my concern here in this RfC.

Obviously take this comment as you will, but I thought it might be useful to point this out from the beginning before discussion proceeds. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to comment here, regardless of your particular view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, I more or less intend any further comments I might make to the very limited contact I have had with ChildofMidnight myself, which I don't honesty think that big a deal, at least in so far as I was directly effected. Maybe Drama Month is not the best time for such an RfC to be filed, but then again maybe letting everyone voice their opinions, and maybe getting toward some sort of workable resolution, could be best accomplished now. I think I will add some commentary, but probably not much. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The timing issue is something I was maybe going to speak to so I'll mention it apropos John Carter's comment. I obviously recognize that this is not the ideal time for something like this, what with it being the holiday season in many parts of the world. Unfortunately the last couple few weeks is basically when things came to a head, and over the past couple of months a number of editors have been calling for an RfC on ChildofMidnight (or asking why Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight remained a red link), but no one seemed willing or able to actually get it going (understandably—it's a time consuming process). Basically this happens to be a time when I am able to do that and I decided it was better to start the RfC at a less than ideal time rather than putting it off indefinitely and ending up with four or five more ANI threads where we get people saying "why hasn't an RfC been started?" Obviously given that the RfC should run for a month and since many editors are busy and/or engaged in more pleasant real-life activities right now they might want to wait until after the New Year to give this some consideration. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

I removed a section started by a de facto banned puppetmaster. [1] Jehochman ^{Make my day} 05:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Liberal

I am actually rather surprised to find that ChildofMidnight is endeavoring to help put forward a conservative perspective. I have been called a lot of things in recent years, including several variations on "fascist pig," and generally by people other than ChildofMidnight. ;) Granted, I try to stay out of external politics around here, and wish I could avoid the internal politics a bit better as well, but to a degree agree that sometimes the content around here is tilted a little to the left. In any event, I tend to agree that you are probably one of the best content producers we have around, and part of the reason for my agreeing to this is that I don't want to see you go the way of Ottava Rima and a few others. God knows I am far from being an ideal example of anything good around here, and that I can make some pretty stupid mistakes myself, like not specifying terms of a proposed block when I should have. But just because there are a few admins who are rather quick on the trigger doesn't mean that even the rest of us admins or others think that their being such makes them more effective. In general, it tends to alienate them from others more than they would want. I acknowledge that at times your complaints are very good, but the way you present them can and does occasionally cross the line, particularly considering how often you make such complaints.

Some of us really hate the politics around here, and wish we could stick to content development more. I'm one of them; hell, I've considered desysoping myself several times, both because the number of protected templates that need editing isn't that great, and that's pretty much the only reason I became an admin, and because it would help me avoid a lot of headaches. This situation is one of those I wish I could avoid. You right now have the opportunity to focus on what pretty much all of us wish we could be doing, developing content. Please don't risk the best part of being an editor for the often fruitless and wearying politics. And if you would want help from someone whom I think you perhaps already don't like in ensuring that the center or right positions are better represented than they are, just drop me a note, either on my talk page or e-mail. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think politics is only peripheral to this. From the diffs given, it seems to me as if COM believes that nobody honest or moral could possibly disagree with him in good faith. This makes him see dissent or disagreement as either trolling or "persecution", because he assumes his opinion is the only sincere, well-thought-out one possible. This in turn has led him to see himself as the poor, innocent victim being persecuted for bravely taking the moral high road.

COM would find that his interactions on Wikipedia would improve if he could accept in his heart that disagreement is not meant as a personal insult and that not agreeing completely with his point of view does not equal persecution. He also needs to accept that he's not always right about everything (none of us are), and that people who are just as moral and intelligent and who are acting in just as good faith as he is can disagree with him and his beliefs. I will also add that seeing the word "persecution" used to mean "not getting my way on Wikipedia" is extremely disturbing. See Blessed Vasyl Velychkovsky for an actual victim of persecution. --NellieBly (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM ignoring this, do we wait the full 30 days for a reply or what?

It's clear that he(?) is ignoring this RFC, he's been very active the past few days, and has replied to some messages on his talk page. It's unfortunate that this will now be a discussion about him and not with him. I think some users believe they are "taking the high road" if they ignore something like this, but all it does is make this whole thing more or less hopeless, we can't reach a voluntary agreement if the person in question won't discuss the matter. Meaning that if this sits here long enough with no response from CoM, the only avenue left is ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is another avenue. When he starts acting up, we could apply blocks liberally as needed. If he whines about this and claims he's not doing anything wrong, this RFC is evidence that many editors see his behavior as problematic. If it eventually needs to go to arbcom, so be it, but it's not the ideal next step. Friday (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Give him time to enjoy the holiday eggnog (I like mine with a healthy dose of Jack Daniel's, for example) and whatnot, and we'll see where we're at next week or so. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We're asking CoM to exercise good faith; let's set the example. It's stressful to be the subject of a conduct RfC. Might take a little while to formulate an answer. Especially with the holidays distracting attention. Durova³⁸⁶ 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc and Durova here. C of M could be formulating a reply, or he could be putting it off until after the holiday season and/or until some more feedback comes in, all of which would be quite understandable. I don't think it's anything to worry about at this point. Additionally, while it would be much, much better if C of M offered his thoughts here, I personally would settle for an acknowledgment from him that he has read through the RfC and at least considered some of the concerns here. If we get into mid-January and there's still no reply or even acknowledgment from C of M that this RfC is running perhaps someone who has a good rapport with C of M can leave a note nudging him to engage with this in some fashion. I don't see a reason to pester him about it until then. (General note: based on past interactions and comments I've seen I'm 99% certain that C of M is male). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree as well. We can afford to be generous and wait for a while longer, particularly considering the time of year. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic to Bigtimepeace: it's hard to say. This tool always mistakes me for a guy. Durova³⁸⁶ 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, except I prefer rum in my eggnog. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to jump to any conclusions, particularly given the time of year. Apart from anything else, not jumping in too quickly with comments is one of the major suggestions in this RfC! If he hasn't responded in early January, someone can post a request on his talk page for him to clarify whether he intends to comment. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

He's apparently got time to continue making the same kind of disruptive posts to AN/I and make comments about this RFC, but not come here and comment. The holidays are over, and unless he shows up in the next 24 hours to say something, I'd say it is a reasonable assumption that he has no plans to respond. He's obviously aware of it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Crossmr directly above that some of ChildofMidnight's recent edits are not encouraging in terms of getting any response over here. Obviously C of M is aware of this RfC (which he described, quite incorrectly, as "the RfC instituted by Bigtimepeace in collusion with editors who are not supposed to be commenting to or about me"—the only other person involved in originating the RfC was John Carter, who like me is completely free to comment about C of M) but he does not seem interested in participating. Initially after it began C of M seemed, from what I saw in his contributions, to be largely staying away from ANI and related fora (I assumed either as a way to keep his head down or as a tacit acknowledgment that a bit of a break might be a good thing). If that pattern would have continued then in a way it would not have mattered if he chose to respond to the RfC or not, because the problematic behavior would have altered in exactly the way many here have been hoping it would, and ultimately that's the key end goal of this bit of dispute resolution.

But now we have comments like this at ANI, and this followup post to Jehochman ("Your battlefield approach is very disappointing Hochman. I believe this is why so many editors saw you as being unfit for Arbcom duties. Please stop playing favorites and adhere to our core policies.") which Jehochman removed from his talk page but which C of M then reinstated (edit warring on another user's talk page is obviously not good). Another admin took him to task for this which resulted in this reply from C of M. That's just one incident and not a major deal in isolation, but to me it's very much in line with some of the specific problems delineated in the RfC. I don't even know the exact context for C of M's complaint here (too much reading to find out!), but regardless of the context, unfounded (or at least unsourced) accusations of "blocking and banning editors of certain viewpoints in order to censor those perspectives," "playing favorites," and "political partisans abusing their tools" are not okay and go right to the heart of the concerns of this RfC, which is apparently being ignored.

I'd obviously like ChildofMidnight to formally respond here, but if he does not do that at least some sort of statement regarding his opinion/evaluation of this RfC seems pretty important as I said above in this thread. Simply continuing on as he has been without even acknowledging the concerns expressed here is just a really bad idea, for ChildofMidnight more than anyone. At some point it might be good if an editor who has a good working relationship with C of M could advise him to engage with (or at least demonstrate that he has considered) this RfC. Two Arbs have already made this point on one of the ArbCom pages pertaining to a largely unrelated matter, but it may take someone with whom C of M is more friendly to get the message across. This overall issue might need revisiting in a few days or a week. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a message [2] asking him to clarify whether he's intending to respond to the RFC. Rd232 ^talk 08:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That seemed to work, apparently a response will eventually be forthcoming. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? that actually looks like a pretty bad response to me. He didn't know we wanted to hear from him? The question of his response was brought up a couple weeks ago. If he was aware of the RFC and read it as he seemed to indicate he should have been more than aware that we expected him to respond.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not commenting on the nature of the response in that diff (I agree it hardly strikes the right tone, and for multiple reasons it's silly for ChildofMidnight to pretend that his feedback was not wanted here), just pointing out that C of M says he will make a comment at some point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just for your information, in the cases of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas, they totally ignored their respective RFC/U regarding their problematic behaviors over one month and never comply to give a response. In part, they believed the RFC/U a harassment of them, in part RFC/U has no obligation to reply to the raised concerns and in part they don't think they did wrong at all on contrary to what people perceived on their behaviors. Only one of the two left a note to discredit the RFC/U about one month after the RFC/U was closed.[3] In light of the fact, I don't know why people are so fretting about whether CoM would reply to here or not even though this was filed in the busiest month of a year to everyone. Moreover, it is highly likely that he is not willing to reply to comments from "unqualified editors" in his view. --Caspian blue 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. I urged him to give his response to this RFC/U already. Given his recent responses to Rd232 and his character as well as the past RFA (so many people made drama over when the page will be opened just like this case), I'm sure he would not dismiss the page. However, I don't know "when".--Caspian blue 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're correct Caspian blue that ChildofMidnight is not required to respond here on the RfC (or indeed to do anything! all volunteer here!). At the least I was hoping he would offer some specific response to it (even if it was just to say "this is crap, I'm not participating") just so we know where he stood. I think the "fretting" above is over the fact that C of M has seemingly continued some of the behavior discussed in the evidence here, and also had time to mention that an RfC exists without actually responding to it in any way. I'm glad you urged him to give a response (I think the main reason to do so is simply that not responding to an RfC does not look so good, particularly when dozens of editors have expressed concerns), and per the diff above it looks like that will happen eventually. Personally I'm in no rush at all, I was just a bit concerned that C of M seemed to have time to stir the pot at ANI about issues with which he was not involved but not to address concerns about his own editing here. Anyhow I don't think there's an issue at this point and ChildofMidnight can offer a response (of whatever type he feels appropriate) at his leisure since the RfC will still run for a couple more weeks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• My concern in asking about this to begin with is that the goal of such a process is to form a voluntary agreement with the user in question about the issues. If the subject of the RFC refuses to participate, then that goal effectively becomes impossible and the RFC becomes moot except as something to point to as evidence of an "attempt to resolve" if this should end up at ArbCom. I'd rather it didn't go that far and that this be resolved here, but we're halfway through and not a peep from CoM yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• CoM's history on AN/I and with ArbCom is well enough known that it isn't worthwhile to dig up diffs. What's notable is that in every case CoM has never even briefly considered the possibility that any problem is even vaguely his or her fault: It's all about corrupt admins and lefty POV-pushers. There's no reason to imagine CoM paying attention to this discussion, and no utility to the discussion beyond its supporting lots of bans and blocks in the future. PhGustaf (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• CoM can heed or ignore any feedback he chooses to. What we all must remember is that this RFC counts as "prior attempts at dispute resolution", meaning that CoM could easily now be the subject of an ArbCom case if problems persist. I suspect his behaviour would not net him a good result there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm

"It's unfortunate that this RfC was initiated by Bigtimepeace who has repeatedly come after editors who don't share his political perspective..."

Responding to one's own RfC in the same manner/attitude that the RfC itself was drafted to address is just...wow. This user simply doesn't get it. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

• Sad, I know. Grsz¹¹ 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Talk about WP:Plaxico. PhGustaf (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• He did it to me today too: [4]. It can only make me laugh at this point. --Jayron32 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  I can't even take these finger-waving "This is very inappropriate behavior" admonishments with a straight face anymore. This is like a Springtime for Hitler-ish farce, with CoM trying to see just how outrageous he can get. Tarc (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Swarm^Talk 07:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this summary

• More innuendo and intimidation. jmcw (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Jtrainor's statement

I don't think the problem is people who check his contribs to drag him to AN/I. I think one of the major problems he has is in getting involved in things that don't involve him to start with, particularly on AN/I, and then dragging up old issues in those discussions.--Crossmr (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That, and never providing diffs to back up his accusations. And neither determination is the result of a leftist conspiracy against him.

This is depressing. We need people with all POVs editing current events pages. But we need them to behave properly. I just really hope CoM will apologise, say he won't involve himself on AN/I in situations that don't involve him, and will provide diffs to back up any accusation of problem behavior he sees in others. If he doesn't, if he blows this off and continues on like he has been, neventually down the road he will end up banned. And it really shouldn't have to happen. Auntie E. 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to repond to Crossmr. The issue is not that he gets involved at AN/I, as that's what it's there for. The issue is more how he gets involved. I have no problem with CoM joining converstaions he's not involved in, I simply wish he would tone it down a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've missed the significance of the "and" in crossmr's sentence. Rd232 ^talk 09:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"I need you to post something nice about me at my RfC"

As requested

Seems that we can do away with the "just busy during the holidays" pretense; [5]. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc--what nonsense. Here you are, snooping on CoM's talk page, where s/he and I have been bantering back and forth since, in my case, some 20,000 edits ago. Do you REALLY think I'm going to let them dictate what I should say where? As a matter of fact, I have LOTS of nice things to say about CoM, and a couple of not so nice things--but since I consider them a friend, I'm really keeping my mouth shut on both counts; I'm already saying more than I would like. Seriously, these sorts of gratuitous comments are ridiculous and only reinforce the very claims CoM sometimes makes. Attack them all you will, but I think it's clear that they have more of a sense of humor than you do. You can do yourself a favor by removing this entire section: you have my blessing to remove my response also. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It reinforces nothing CoM has to say, stop being so goddamn melodramatic. The intent here was to point out that the subject of this RfC is quite well-aware of its existence and is now willfully ignoring it, as opposed to allowances made last week (even by me) for possibly being busy during the holidays. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, thank you for pointing that out so nicely. And what if I took offense to your uncalled-for cursing? Drmies (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If I were you two, then for the sake of sparing everyone some burns I would just ignore the "uncalled-for cursing" and "goddamn melodramatic", because this has the feel of two people sizing each other up before a fight. Not meaning to step on any toes here, but I just don't like the direction I saw this headed. Happy New Years to you Tarc, and you Drmies. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Editors from some time zones may already be the second decade of the twenty-first century. Over here in California it's barely afternoon (New Year's Eve doesn't technically start until evening). Let's keep mellow and be courteous to each other. Durova³⁹⁰ 20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Seconded. Can I echo the request for "more mellow" from Northern California? Probably as we write CoM's fluffy puppies are lunching on bacon and kumquat sorbets. Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
          • The second decade of the twenty-first century doesn't begin until 2011. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Sure, no problem. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • • • • • • Lol, you're right. Leave it to a group of Wikipedians for someone to point that out. Durova³⁹¹ 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'm also from Northern California (where the palm trees meet the pines, and there's pineapple guava at the farmers' market) and I think it's OK to give CoM a pass for the evening. Not that it's not OK to jump up and down on her (Just guessing, but about 60-40 sure) by Sunday. 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs)

Tarc, can you change the subsection title to "Doc I need you to post something nice about me at my RfC. Prefereably with a picture of cute puppies or snuggly children or something." It obviously was a joke. Ikip 16:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, this section was begun to simply show that the subject is well-aware of the RfC but is (so far) intentionally declining to participate in any way. It was not to suggest that members of CoM's entourage were intending to fill the space with rainbows and sunshine testimonials. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77's statement

Can we get some more eyes on this? It has been reverted twice (once by myself) already, as IMO is not anything approaching a serious or legitimate entry into an RfC. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the subject of this RfC is clearly not taking it seriously, I don't see silly contributions as totally out of order. PhGustaf (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• META NOTE: While I understand my "rhetorical" comments seem quite strange, let me posit the existence of a frame of reference: '"rhetorical interaction" in which the perhaps disturbing elements of the communication form a complex matrix which addresses the elements of the situation which should be weighed in weighing User: ChildofMidnight — whose subtle implications of great richochetotry (imagine the strike of the cue ball against the recently racked) ... sometimes even goes over my head. (And that's pretty high. :-)

  (Let's let those thoughts settle for a few moments, and I will see if anything else needs to be said/done.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the keys words here are "pretty high"... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No no, the key word is definitely "richochetotry" which hitherto had not apparently appeared on the internet. So Proofreader77's remarks have been very useful in terms of making up new (perhaps misspelled?) words, but not so much in terms of helping this RfC, or ChildofMidnight for that matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof might be referring to a massé shot, a highly unpredictable billiards maneuver. It's not clear what that has to do with the matter at hand, but that article is a hoot. PhGustaf (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been a fairly serious BLP violation above. Remember, careless talk costs lives. Mathsci (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See also[6]/ PhGustaf (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Rick O'Shay - OK, now you're being useful. (Didn't know about that — good research for the Wikipedia Western musical. (Smiling but not joking — as usual). Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This has turned oddly encyclopedic, in a minor way. I've made sure [7] [8] that fans of defunct western comics will not be stuck on a page about a chatty Irishman, or vice versa. Since it resulted in those housekeeping article edits, has this now vaulted into the Top Ten in terms of All Time Most Productive User Conduct RfCs? If so I think everyone who has edited here gets a barnstar and/or free billiards lessons from ArbCom (though from what I've heard they all suck at pool—even Fritzpool!). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[Rhetorical quality note] re: Bigtimepeace: "This has turned oddly encyclopedic ..." - Hear hear! -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK - Those who revert a Proofreader77 rhetorical sonnet ...

... must match his recent $1,000 donation to Wikipedia? (It is written ... Selah.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

... are doing a good deed that many would consider a thankless task. Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

... are setting up the RfC for nullification. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 09:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

...fear ore prod 77? (Do I win?) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• ORE!?! (Lost in disambiguation LoL, processing [loop] hung. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The "cue ball theory" of CoM's "rhetorical interaction"

As per PhGustaf (sort of) ... When you understand that, you will understand all. Any questions? (Of course, if I explain it, the matrix will adapt by adjusting several coefficients of some fuzzy math equations — rendering your new knowledge useless for practical application. But ask away.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Next steps?

Reading the "desired outcome" section.. I think we have our answers. Yes, CoM's behavior is widely seen as a problem. And it's been documented. And he shows no signs of changing his behavior. So the next step is probably a topic ban, altho it's unclear to me whether there's any realistic way to implement such a measure short of arbcom. Ideas? Friday (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there's a way. Go start a thread at WP:AN with a suggested restriction, referencing this RFC, and let it be discussed. If there's a consensus, a community sanction can be established. If not, the matter will most likely be accepted by ArbCom, and they should be able to make a quick decision. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that ArbCom would probably make a fairly quick decision, since several of them have already commented on the case request pages. CoM has insulted some of them (e.g. Rlevse), so there might be a fair number of unavoidable recusals. I'm not sure a discussion at WP:ANI would achieve anything apart from expanding the page to breaking point. That is what has happened in recent discussions of this topic. An RfC was always mentioned as the next step. Although CoM has probably looked at the RfC, he doesn't seem to have taken any notice of the positive advice users have given him. I think an appeal for a quick motion from ArbCom might be the speediest and most drama-free way to resolve this problem if that is possible. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN is a bit less drama-prone. We might try a discussion there first. Who knows, maybe there would be a consensus. Here's a classic example of how CoM feeds a conflictby encouraging a disruptive editor to fight, instead of to reform: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Damiens.rf_block_review. Disruption on own account is bad enough, but encouraging others (meta disruption) is icing on the cake. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The behavior on that AN thread is far from encouraging, and indeed it's sort of a textbook case similar to others described in the RfC. There would be nothing wrong with questioning the block and asking for a review (no offense to Jehocman, and I haven't looked at in any detail to determine my own view), but the manner in which C of M does it is quite unacceptable, immediately personalizing the issue and assuming bad faith.

To Friday's original post, I agree that the RfC has established the fact that C of M's behavior is problematic. Some sort of topic ban from AN/ANI might be needed (though honestly I'm not sure that would solve the issues), and I don't have a firm position as to how to go about considering that possibility (e.g. via AN or ArbCom). I don't think we should rush into that though, as the RfC still has time to run and C of M still has time to make a reply. It was just over four days ago that he said "if you think that all of those who want to comment have finished doing so, I'm happy to provide a response." I'm fairly skeptical about that actually happening since he's done plenty of editing in the interim, but I don't have a problem with waiting either. Obviously if C of M keeps up the disruptive "crap-stirring" (to paraphrase Gladys j cortez) on noticeboards some will want to take action sooner, but ideally I would think we should wait until this RfC officially closes and some additional "incident" crops up.

What ChildofMidnight really needs right now is Wiki-friends who can help steer him in the right direction, which in part means moving away from AN/ANI and toward the response section of the RfC. User:Caspian blue (who I know has a cordial relationiship with ChildofMidnight) has been trying to do that recently [9] [10] but apparently to no avail. It would be great if some of the other editors who commented more in support of C of M here on the RfC could take a similar tack, because otherwise this whole situation seems to be heading in a not-so-great direction. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

People have tried to help steer CoM back into the right direction. He's ignored them. It's very clear that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks, and isn't going to change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight's response

To my mind the response is obviously rather disappointing (even though I appreciate that it was offered) since it seems to say that ChildofMidnight completely rejects the notion that there is any problem and indicates that nothing is going to change (indeed the problematic behaviors are repeated in the reply itself as is mentioned above).

I'll leave to the side the manner in which ChildofMidnight characterizes my participation on Wikipedia (except to say that I think it is 100% inaccurate), but I did want to point out the irony of C of M referring to John Carter as someone who "disagree[s] with me [ChildofMidnight] ideologically" given this remark by John Carter in the third section of the RfC talk page. I'm sure C of M has read that, and there John remarks that he thinks Wiki content can sometimes be tilted to the left and would be willing to help C of M correct specific instances of that. Leaving aside whether or not there is an ideological tilt in Wikipedia articles, it's remarkable that ChildofMidnight can simply ignore John's statement and still casually portray him as some sort of an ideological opponent. However again this is part of a pattern in a couple of ways: 1) If C of M sees your behavior as problematic, he often immediately casts it ideological/political terms; 2) Clear evidence that something is simply not true (e.g. John Carter does see some "left bias" on Wikipedia and therefore does not necessarily disagree with C of M ideologically) does not prevent ChildofMidnight from repeating it over and over again. I for one have been on the receiving end when it comes to this second issue and it's extremely frustrating when one attempts to point out (repeatedly) a simple matter of fact and it is ignored. Assuming that some additional form of dispute resolution will be necessary in the future (as it unfortunately might), this tendency on ChildofMidnight's part to not hear certain comments will make coming up with workable solutions rather more difficult than it need be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about right. See also my talk page, where he pretty much accuses me of having a political bias, but fails to even once name what that bias is. Apparently, my political bias is nothing, but that is still apparently a bias in his eyes. Whatever. --Jayron32 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he likes to accuse editors in general (of several things) w/o providing diffs (which probably do not exist anyways). I'd say: Let him play his childish game and not let him insult our intelligent by responding to such unproofed and stupid accusations. Just let him be and cut him out where he oversteps the lines WP is build on.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dialog

ChildofMidnight, it looks like real world politics have spilled over onto your Wikipedian interactions. This may surprise you: until this RfC I wasn't really aware of that component. Your name had been on the Obama arbitration but I hadn't noticed which side you were on. A lot of Wikipedians actually don't pay much attention to that sort of thing because we log out of personal politics when we log in as editors. Wikipedia namespace interaction isn't about gaining the upper hand for an ideology: the best editors and administrators often take onsite actions that run against their personal leanings. The ideal is to apply policies so evenhandedly that no one can tell what an editor's politics are from the contribution history. A few isolated pockets of the site don't function that way. Please don't let that skew your opinion of the rest of the site, though. Durova³⁹⁴ 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

closing time

I think it's about time we found an uninvolved party to come up with a closing summary for this RFC, there doesn't seem to be any forward progress occurring, and the thirty days are up [11]. I didn't actually participate, so I guess theoretically I could do it if nobody else wants to. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a notice at WP:AN to see if anyone else might with a bit more distance from the subject might step up and do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to nullify RfC (procedural fouls) aka What would Google think?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My (admittedly unusual, but rhetorically intentional — not to mention barn-star winning) comment was removed (twice, and discussed above). Its removal indicates a prosecutorial bias which taints the entire cluster fuck [community discussion]. While this motion may be met with the same assumptions of "unseriousness," I assure you, I am quite serious. As was my twice-removed rhetorically-complex comment. Big picture: What would Google think? Let it be noted that Google has recently said it would walk away from the 1.3 billion people in China because of matters related to freedom of speech. How would this RfC appear to Google if presented as a "case study" of Wikipedia community discussion regarding participatory speech interaction. Would not the response to this RfC be "What the fuck are they doing?" It is from that perspective which I made my own addition to the discussion — which the discussion would not tolerate. Sounds like a serious matter of something going off the rails with respect to the idea of what "community" means (if, in fact, that is the best word for the collective wisdom of this collaborative project). Proposal: Let this RfC be closed with a note of "oh my, too much, let us think better about what we're doing next time." Or other words more suitably fuzzy. I repeat: What would Google think? Act accordingly. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Cliffsnotes; user adds worthless crap to an ongoing attempt at dispute resolution. Worthless crap is removed several times. User claims the entire dispute resolution is a failure due to removal aforementioned worthless crap. Yea... Tarc (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC) For all that care, this was the statement twice removed. It speaks for itself. Carry on. --Jayron32 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) You seem to be missing the whole Google's opinion being more important than yours, idea. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 03:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC) DNFTT, guys. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Truly ridiculous beyond all prior charted levels of ridiculosity. I suggest this be closed as an argument magnet, and ignored. Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) ::Ah, a personal attack. Aspersion of "troll." (Add to the "Powerpoint bullet" file :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(in regard to your email to me, Proofreader77): motion denied. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)