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)

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)

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

Seems that we can do away with the "just busy during the holidays" pretense; [2]. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)