Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

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

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

Desired outcome

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

Description

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

ArbCom case (brief background)

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

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

Attacks and "unsourced" accusations against other editors

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

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

General defamation of other contributors not specified

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

1. [40] "I will not remain silence in the face of grotesque censorship and abuse now or ever. Some things are worth fighting for and I will never kowtow to ignorant thugs."
2. [41] "swamp characters and POV pushing game players who infest Wikipedia's political coverage"
3. [42] "stalking, harassing, and hounding of editors with minority viewpoints that promotes censorship"
4. [43] "...even if the political climate on this site wasn't as partisan and antagonistic to those who don't toe the dominant liberal/leftist world view"
5. [44] "I have tried to be circumspect. But if others feel it would be helpful to go into more detail on the history of secret tribunals and black op type operations conducted on and off Wikipedia I am happy to do so." (offered, in a rather tone-deaf manner, in a thread about anonymous harassment of editor ScienceApologist)
6. [45] "Many (most?) people on Wikipedia come across to me as borderline psycopathic and potentially dangerous."
7. [46] "...we should all be calling out the bullies and censors. The civility policy and our BLP policies don't exist to be twisted into cudgels used by POV pushers against anyone who doesn't happen to share their beliefs..."
8. [47] "That seems like an Orwellian approach worthy of Fahrenheit 451 that would be more in line with the authoritarian book burning employed by fascists that an unbiased encyclopedia."
9. [48] "We can't allow abusive individuals to attack and censor those they disagree with in order to push their personal opinions and perspectives. This kind of intimidation, harassment, misuse of admin tools, and other bullying is unacceptable. Those who engage in this sort of disruption to as a means of censorship should be blocked indefinitely..."
10. [49] "...you don't seem to understand that there are packs of POV pushing editors with admin friends on Wikipedia. If you allow youself to be baited into reacting to their taunts and trolling their allies will be more than happy to block you."
11. [50] "of course there's the usual bullying from one of Wikipedia's abusive, antagonistic and disruptive wikicops"
12. [51] "The Orwellian policies here encouraged his behavior and only punished him for disclosing to others who he was. That's how Wiki works. Tell the truth get punished...But the liars, cheats, and incompetents continue to wander around causing disruptions and aiding POV pushers in their damaging campaigns. It's all pretty disgusting."
13. [52] "This whole circus reeks of hypocrisy and abuse, but as per Orwellian rules on Wiki the accused are the ones who tried to do right."
14. [53] "Such is the way of Wiki justice. If we repeat newspeaky statements like "an indefinite block is not forever" enough times does it start to make sense?....I hope George Orwell is laughing as he looks down on us."
15. [54] "I've been dragged to these boards numerous times by various POV pushing fuckwits posting lies, distortions and other nonsense after coming after me because they disagree with the way I edited something. Once or twice a dimwitted admin, unable to comprehend the simplest of situations, even blocks me." (coming, ironically, on the heels of a Wikiquette alert about ChildofMidnight)
16. [55] [56] [57] [58] [see altered images in fourth diff] -- All of these relate to an incident where ChildofMidnight placed images of Nazis on his talk page and likened problems on Wikipedia to Nazi suppression. When others objected strongly to the images, ChildofMidnight responded with the following remarks, among others: "These harassers [and] stalkers are like Nazis.", "Those who stand with censors, intimidators and harassers on Wikipedia are very much like the appeasers that stood silent and avoided confrontation with nazis. The analogy is right on target and I stand by it 100%...Silence = death...I'm not going to shut up about the intolerance, censorship and hate this thuggery is fostering.", "They didn't start rounding up the "undesirables" right away. First they spread their propaganda and consolidated power. An encyclopedia that contains false, misleading and innacurate information and that is governed by bullies and liars is a real danger. I haven't suggested it's in any way equivalent to slaughtering people. But it's very much like book burning.", "Never forget. Oppose censorship, harassment, and intimidation. Those who remain silent about these abuses are part of the problem"

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. [59] User:Bigtimepeace pointing out problematic behavior that had been mentioned numerous times before, asking if it's something ChildofMidnight can work on (see here for entire talk page thread including the preceding diff).
2. [60] [61] User:John Carter referencing a conflict between Redheylin and Cirt, which ultimately led to ChildofMidnight calling for the desysopping of Cirt, Georgewilliamherbert and John Carter here.
3. Final effort, after the draft of this RfC was largely completed, to avoid the need for a request for comment.
4. Other editors, not now certifying the RfC, who have commented directly to ChildofMidnight about his problematic behavior, or suggested that some sort of community action to address it might be needed, include the following (links are to their comments and are worth reviewing): Ched Davis; Deacon of Pndapetzim; DGG; Dougweller; Duae Quartunciae; Grsz11; Heimstern; Horologium; Jehochman; Jimbo Wales; Luna Santin; Matt57; Rd232; Shell Kinney; SirFozzie;Tznkai; Unionhawk; Unitanode

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. Attempt #1 (referenced in preceding section) rebuffed by ChildofMidnight with edit summary "not interested in further trolling and baiting from you Bigtimepeace."
2. Attempt #2 (referenced in preceding section) again rebuffed and turned against the editor citing problems with ChildofMidnight's behavior. [62] "Accusing someone of doing something that you are engaging in is hypocrisy. That's not a personal attack. And your history of disruptive and biased behavior towards good faith content contributors is totally unwelcome here.", also [63] "It should be noted that John Carter is involved and has a long history of disruptive and confrontational behavior that I have pointed out to him."
3. Attempt #3 (referenced in preceding section) again rejected by ChildofMidnight with edit summary "remove beligerent threat from Bigtimepeace who is treating Wikipedia as a battlegound to go after editors that don't share his perspective. The many arbcom violations on his talk page are unacceptable"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC) This RfC is a regrettable but I think necessary step at this time. It is my strong hope that this discussion can stay civil, produce some positive results for everyone concerned, and help to head off problems in the future.
2. -- John Carter (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - I think it is in everyone's best interests that this sort of discussion be had, and this may well be the only location in which the comments of all those involved can be given voice and, with luck, noted and responded to.

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Just turn down the rhetoric and you'll be fine. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Response

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

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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

Outside view by

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

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