Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Pedro II of Brazil		20 February 2010	{{{votes}}}
Bourbon-Two Sicilies		19 February 2010	{{{votes}}}
Ikip		17 February 2010	{{{votes}}}
ChildofMidnight		15 February 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Pedro II of Brazil

Initiated by Lecen (talk) at 03:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Fernandoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice of this arbitration request was left on the user talk page for Fernandoe here at 03:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [1] - Tried to deal with the other editor but to no avail.
• [2] - Requested the help from an Administrator to deal with the matter but I got no reply.

Statement by Lecen

Fernandoe has made several edits [3], [4], [5] where he added "de Bragança e Habsburgo" to the full name of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. I reverted his edits explaining that the former emperor has no last names (as any royal) and pointed out the article Early life of Pedro II of Brazil#Prince Imperial where there are four different sources that give his full name. I did that on my reverts [6] [7] and also on a private message to him.[8] I asked for the help of an administrator but I got no reply from him and Fernandoe has kept editing the article. And worse, he does not give any source to explain his additions and only says that "The emperor Dom peter II have last names. He is son of Maria Leopoldina de Habsburgo-Lorena and Dom Pedro I de Bragança e Bourbon". Pedro II has neither "Braganza" nor "Habsburg" in his name as can be seen in the article about his early life. --Lecen (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

At first glance, it looks like WP:RFC would be a better venue. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

• Decline as a content dispute. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bourbon-Two Sicilies

Initiated by Caponer at 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Caponer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice of this arbitration request was left on the user talk page for LouisPhilippeCharles here at 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC). --Caponer (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Confirmation that settlement has been attempted is quoted below. Please review both of our talk pages for further evidence of our attempts at resolution. Caponer (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Caponer

LouisPhilippeCharles made significant edits to articles (and conducted mass-moves of articles) on members of the Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies without any prior discussion or arbitration with fellow editors. LouisPhilippeCharles has been moving articles and editing information to the effect that he has chosen to rename "Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" to "Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies." LouisPhilippeCharles has provided no sources or reference data to stand by these mass edits and article moves. I've since undone many of his edits and article moves, but there continues to be debate without his providing of references or sources to stand by his claims. In line with Wikipedia's policy for arbitration, I have decided to bring our disagreement for a solution here. LouisPhilippeCharles has been both respectful and civil, but his past unilateral actions have caused me some concern. I have provided LouisPhilippeCharles with the following rationale for keeping the articles "Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" and NOT "Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies":

When you say that you are not satisfied with the articles "at all"...what does this "at all" comprise of? Are the articles not grammatically correct? Are the data provided not accurate? If "at all" is pertaining to the titles of members of Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, you may need to take your concern to the members of the royal house themselves, for they use "Bourbon-Two Sicilies", "Borbone delle Due Sicilie", "Borbón-Dos Sicilias", "Bourbon de Deux-Siciles", etc. etc. At no time did any Prince or Princess regard themselves as a Prince or Princess "of the Two Sicilies." Not even when the Kingdom was in its existence. You'll also notice that no other Wikipedia site refers to them as being "of the Two Sicilies." Please check out the two official sites of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies here and here. You'll notice there that the official press statements of the family use "Bourbon-Two Sicilies." The "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" surname is also used to describe them by a number of third parties including but certainly not excluding: thePeerage.com, and AnOnlineGotha, etc. An Online Gotha even mentions at the top of the Two Sicilies page: "The children, and the children of sons, of the head of the house, bear the title Prince[ss] Royal of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Royal Highness). Other members of this family bear the title Prince[ss] of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Royal Highness)." So given this, I would please ask you to be more specific with your grievance. In the meantime, I will find an appropriate venue for this conversation to take place. --Caponer (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, LouisPhilippeCharles and I have also had some disagreement about members of the Royal House of Orléans. In English, members of this family are known as "Princes and Princesses of Orléans" and LouisPhilippeCharles has been renaming articles "Princes and Princesses d'Orléans" when "d'" is the French version and not the English one. I would like for an arbitration committee to please find a solution so that these disagreements can be settled. Caponer (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Louis Philippe Charles

Two Scilies

having moved many of the articles within the Two Sicilies family, myself and Caponer have had a mild disagreement! i moved many of them as it makes more sense that they are titled as Prince/ss X of the Two Sicilies simply because a person is not a Prince/ess of a royl house; one is not an Infante of Bórbon, Son of Bourbon of Grand Duke of Romanov, he is an Infante of Spain, Son of France and Grand Duke of Russia. I can understand the reasoning behind Caponer naming them as Bourbon-Two Scilies but this could be seen as misleading to people who are not familiar with wiki naming conventions and people who are just visiting for whatever reason.

The italian name of these Princes is Prince X di Borbone delle Due Sicilie, thus indicating that delle Due Sicilie (of the Two Siclies) is indeed a style. as i have said, one is not a prince of a royal house, he is a prince of a nation!

surely the most simple way (again going back to ease of access for people regardless of what they are here for) is to have all the article as the Two Sicilies. i say this as to me, it seems logical for them to be named this for the noted reasons! also, Caponer gave me some link and they also name people as X of the Two Sicilies rather then di Borbone delle Due Sicilie. surely this style of translation is best for Wikipedia as well as consistency! some articles are called Bourbon-Sicilies and others of the Two Sicilies! this is very misleading to the untrained eye!

another point of mine, is reagrding the Naples and Sicily dispute; Princess Luisa Carlotta of Naples and Sicily (1804-1844; future Duchess of Cadiz) was born as such, and now known as Bourbon-Two Sicilies!? this is misleading also as it makes our she was born as a princess of the united kingdoms, when she was not! it needs to be sorted out! how does it make sense!? her sister called Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies, even in the first line it says principessa delle Due Sicilie! later on; Her Spanish name was María Cristina de las Dos Sicilias..)

i also cant help but say, this..;Hello Louis, I created the majority of the Bourbon-Two Sicilies articles[..] as he write on talk page a few days ago; i can help but feel that Caponer has a slight issue with people changing/editing the majority of these articles in which I [he] created! that sort of dispute is not fair at all

I hope my little rationale has helped :)

Princes d'Orléans

With regards to this hot topic, i have said it once and will say it again however many times it takes; the title of Prince of Orléans is fine, that is a style, a title by ones birth! i, and many others, have an issue with the translation of the surname for example Prince (prince taken from the wiki convention as he is not a monarch and only a duke) Louis Philippe Charles d'Orléans, Duke of the Two Sicilies, Prince of Orléans! when d'Orléans is a surname it is not translated; however as a Duke/Prince of Orléans, this is allowed as it is the correct style! an old example of Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans (1676-1723); a more recent example is Prince Jean Carl Pierre Marie d'Orléans, Duke of Vendôme, Prince of Orléans! is it so difficult for people to understand :(

as a member of the House of Orléans, he is a prince of Orléans which as noted, is his style! but his surname is d'Orléans. i hope this makes sense! people seem to find it very hard to understand :( LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Giano

I don't edit these pages and don't want to become involved, but if you want the correct answer explaining drop by my talk.  Giano  13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Decline arbitration at this time because arbitration is not the best way to resolve this dispute. The Arbitration Committee usually resolves disputes concerning allegations that editors have behaved improperly. Formal arbitration is a contentious process generally regarded as a last resort. Here, the dispute appears to be a content disagreement between knowledgeable good-faith editors about what the articles should be titled or say. There are other steps in dispute resolution that are better suited to resolving this disagreement, such as a third opinion, request for comment or mediation. Please pursue one of these avenues toward resolving this disagreement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. Steve Smith (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. SirFozzie (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as a content dispute that doesn't appear to have gone through other steps in dispute resolution. Arbitration is considered to a last resort for issues revolving around user conduct. If you're unable to come to an agreement, try asking some other users for their thoughts on the issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. KnightLago (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ikip

Initiated by Scott Mac (Doc) at 14:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Okip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Ikip (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ikip[9]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Requests from multiple editors on his talk page, and on the project pages in question to cease and desist.
• Link 2

Statement by Scott MacDonald

My activities wrt the deletion of unsourced BLPs have not been universally popular, but these have already been examined by the committee. The upside of that whole drama is a productive community discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. At its best this has been productive and cathartic, with the community examining what the issues are and what can be done about them.

Unfortunately, Ikip/Okip, has been continually disrupting that community discussion with long, personalising, posts - spouting bad faith accusations and making personal attacks unrelated to the community policy discussion. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Also, blocked for edit warring on the page [15]

He has been asked by various editors to desist, but seems intent to continue. [16] [17] [18] [19]

I took my eyes of the RfC for some days, and was upset to see numerous posts about me personally, each one selectively misquoting me, and linking my name to shadowy secret mailing lists and some form of conspiracy linked matters concerning MzMcBride that arbcom has already examined, and in which I was never a party. (See the posts above and amazingly his asking Durova if I'm a member of a mailing list, when he's not even raised any questions with me directly

I have indicated to Ikip that the correct way to call my behaviour into question is either to ask me about it (he never has) or to file a user conduct RfC (he declines to do this). I regard his posts as personal attacks, full of unevidenced innuendo, in effect poisoning the well of an important community discussion. His latest post to the RfC offers to "retract" but then repeats the same accusations and bad faith irrelevancies.[20]

His attacks on me, I view as scurrilous (without evidence) and cowardly (he's not willing to confront me directly nor instigate an appropriate community discussion where I get to respond and his "evidence" gets examined). Rather than debate with my consider opinions, he runs about repeating one ill-advised post I retracted, even after I've corrected him on several occasions. But that's not the point. This isn't about my reputation or about personal attacks, it is about one user attempting to derail a community process.

I am asking for a topic ban at least, possibly a namespace restriction, and others may have evidence of more problematic behaviour for arbcom to consider.

Given the policy tensions on the page, I would submit the community will find this hard to deal with, and a speedy resolution would be in the wider interest. --Scott Mac (Doc) 14:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

@RyanP. Two points in response to your demands for an RfC. 1) It is patently obvious that Ikip is not responsive to criticism. Some of those attempting to get him to curtail his behaviour have been wholly uninvolved, and have been badmouthed as part of the "conspiracy". 2) We need to look at the context here, this isn't just the usual disruption. This RfC is pretty critical to the smooth running of wikipedia and particularly to the vexed issue of BLP, and that's currently being de-railed by what looks like a mischievous attempt to poison the well or to filibuster in the face of an emerging consensus. Perhaps an RfC on Ikip's general behaviour would be the way to go in examining that (although I suspect it may degenerate into a real shitstorm), but we do need an immediate solution to allows the BLP RfC to run smoothly. Hell, the policy issues are vexed enough without this crap. Bottom line, I'm happy to withdraw this request in favour of a more wide-ranging RfC, but I would ask for an interim motion restricting Ikip from continuing to disrupt the RfC. 240 editors have apparently taken part in this, 1 editor should not be allowed to steal the show. Would the project not be better off without Ikip's participation in this field? There's plenty of other well-behaved and articulate editors who share his perspective here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold for a few hours. In response to some of the comments here, I've asked for a community page ban at WP:AN#Page ban for Ikip from the BLP RFC. If this meets with consensus, this RfArb can be withdrawn and an RfC on his behaviour considered later. If the community can't do something to protect the BLP RfC then I'd suggest that arbcom at very least issue some restraining order by motion. An RfC on his behaviour is fine, but we do need an immediate halt to the disruption of the BLP RfC. (I trust I will not be accused of forum shopping here, this was in response to concerns raised on this page).--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Please reject this case, even if on purely procedural grounds. There is no emergency which needs the committee to disregard their requirement of previous attempts at dispute resolution. "Requests from multiple editors on his talk page, and on the project pages in question to cease and desist" is not valid attempts at lesser methods of dispute resolution. There should at the very least be a user conduct request for comment to give Ikip the opportunity to respond to concerns - that isn't merely an attempt to put a hurdle in the way, it's procedural fairness and would give Ikip the opportunity to listen to 'official' feedback from the community and change his ways if needs be. I see no reason to move from that requirement simply because of the current heat surrounding the BLP debate. Before even an RfC, I'd like to see a discussion on the admin noticeboard to let Ikip gain some unofficial feedback. Would the committee accept this case if the behvaiour from Ikip was happening in another discussion unrelated to BLP? I doubt that very much. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Scott MacDonald

Whilst I respect that Ikip's behaviour here is less than ideal (and I would suggest to him that the basic fact that a fellow editor feels the need to file a request for arbitration against him should lead him to examining his own behaviour with a view to changing his ways), I still don't feel there is a need to move away from our traditional dispute resolution hierarchy. If his conduct is so egregious that you believe a project space ban (or page ban) is needed, then raise it on the admin noticeboard. That could be done without an RfC on his actions, but I don't like the idea of the committee getting involved unless they absolutely have to. Ideally, you would give him a chance to change his course of actions via an RfC - there's plenty of people who would be willing to certify it, but there is also the community sanction route you could take if you feel it needs it (although I would personally like to see an RfC first). Only after you had tried those two steps would I agree a case (or motion) from the committee is needed. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Steve Smith

Basically ii and iii. I believe that unless there's an emergency, or a prolonged discussion on a noticeboard, ArbCom shouldn't step in to look at individual user conduct. I also believe in this case there are a lot of people willing to give sage advice to Ikip and if he didn't heed the advice and calm his ways after an RfC, he'd be rather silly. In short, I think an RfC could work. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Here's the reply I gave at my talk page.[21] I did not solicit the question; please leave my name out of this. The recent fashion is of bypassing preliminary dispute resolution in the attempt to sanction people is becoming worrisome: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ikip. Ryan is right; please reject and refer back to the community. Durova⁴¹² 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I'll save extended commentary for evidence if this case is accepted or referred elsewhere. Ikip/Okip has been blocked twice for disruption related to this RFC. During phase 1, he was blocked for mass-spamming on user talk pages for an "invitation only" project to come up with proposals for the RFC under the guise of "new user welcome." He was blocked again recently for edit warring relating to moving comments around. Neither block has had the effect of significantly toning down his comments (it arguably got worse after the first block). Much, if not most of his comments relating to the RFC in the past several days have been little more than out of context quoting, allegations with no evidence, wikilawyering, smears, and even veiled threats.

In June 2009, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black, Ikip was "warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with." He's done almost exactly that in this RFC. In addition to the previous warning from ArbCom and lack of change from the 2 blocks, the most recent block was overturned without any consultation from the community or the blocking admin, so I have little confidence that anything other than drama would result from an AN thread. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

@SirFozzie (and others noting a lack of prior dispute resolution): In a previous ArbCom case (linked above), Ikip was warned about making comments like [22]. How is that significantly different from comments like [23] (referring to the "... weren't you the editor ..." part) to the extent that the warning would be inapplicable now, less than a year from the last case? Mr.Z-man 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? This wasn't a rhetorical question... Mr.Z-man 16:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

I urge that this case be rejected. This is yet another ripple of the recent unsourced BLP article debacle, and having waded in a few times already and now left the matter to the community, I don't think it would be wise for Arbcom to wade in again at this point. What Ikip is arguing seems to be essentially true, if misplaced. Per the this ArbCom case MZMcBride, the editor who started the RfC, was collaborating with a site-banned editor in a breaching experiment to vandalize (for lack of a better word) various unwatched BLP articles in an effort to demonstrate that they could be vandalized without detection. MZMcBride also started and apparently ran a private forum (per this) where some of those agitating for deletion of unsourced BLP articles coordinated their efforts. The recent deletion and tagging / nomination of unsourced BLP articles can be seen a comparable process violation, so it's understandable that editors unhappy with it would want to know what happened and who else is involved. This looks like a page from the playbook of past past mass deletion adventures like this one, with some of the same players. If there is something to it, it taints the RfC process for some to know that the originator and some of the proponents at one side of the debate are doing things behind the community's back while seeming to participate in a consensus resolution. If not, then some editors have been unjustly maligned. I am not personally familiar with either incident, so I just don't know. The parties have been less than forthcoming about their involvement, and getting to the bottom of things has been a rather arduous process of hammering away at inconsistent statements and disingenuous denials. If there is nothing to it, it would be easy enough to simply deny.

What does this all have to do with Ikip? Nothing, really. He is simply voicing a reasonable concern, although one that the community has probably grown tired of, too loudly, and in the wrong place. Those under scrutiny are trying to get him to stop, and relatively uninvolved people like me have counseled Ikip to tone it down and take it to a more appropriate forum rather than fomenting discontent on the RfC pages. Even if ArbCom could hone in on Ikip's behavior and that of the editors he's accusing, without getting into the underlying subject of BLP deletions, I don't see that we need ArbCom's help to deal with the matter at this time. Whether ArbCom says this or others, we need to keep the RfC going until consensus coalesces behind one approach or another to go through the backlog of unsourced BLP articles. I don't think Ikip is going to derail that, and once we have a solution any lingering dissent will naturally die down. Hanky panky on one side, and indignation on the other, are both detrimental to reaching a smooth consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up, if someone can propose a modest editing restriction, like "I will not post complaints about other editors relating to the BLP matter on the RfC or other process pages", maybe a neutral editor can broker a voluntary resolution. - 17:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

I'm not sure that arbcom should do anything here. It's going to die down on its own, I think. Arbcom said they weren't going to look into the BLP message board thing, and Okip decided that he would do it. He's emotionally involved, and his comments have been over the top because of this, and seriously annoyed a number of users. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Sorry, Scott, no prior dispute resolution and no user RfC, I don't see any profit in this request. I strongly suspect that the best way of dealing with Ikip here is simply to ignore him. Those weighing up the RfC can surely spot sour grapes easily enough. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

Ikip is showing a continued lack of understanding and a constant want to make this into an issue that doesn't exist. I would greatly appreciate if the Arbitration Committee put forth some type of motion to prevent Ikip from continuing to get out of hand. His most recent comments at the RFC trying to make the RFC invalid just because of something MZMcBride did, is just more drama mongering. I'm certain that Ikip knows that the RFC wasn't created solely by MZMcBride and that its results would have been the same no matter who had opened it; he's just trying to make it appear that there was some sort of secret system working in the background to make his opinions on the matter not be the consensus.

If Ikip can't accept reason and sensibility in these discussions, he should be removed from them.

@Collect: The previous ArbCom motion has nothing to do with Ikip's refusal to accept reason in these discussions; on top of that MZMcBride's case isn't what created the ArbCom motion you are referring to anyway, so I fail to see a connection. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Nobody

Ikip is a knowledgable and intelligent editor with Wikipedia's best intentions at heart. I share his frustration with the same amount of time/energy that it takes to tag and nominate and say to delete a BLP article can and should instead be put into searching for sources. Instead of being a reference guide of sourced articles of interest to our readership, we are becoming a collection of AfDs in which I have seen editors refer to the subjects under discussion as swear words and other slurs, let alone insulting people by dismissing them as "non-notable" (if we were really concerned about not smearing living people, we would not have discussions floating around in which accounts indiscriminately say a living person is "non-notable" or some other slight. How that is better than finding neutral sources to verify an article that is at least of interest to someone is beyond me... But instead, we have I don't even know how many AfDs, RfCs, admin boards, etc. that are only of interest to people who study Wikipedia's culture. I just keep coming back to imagine what we might actually accomplish with our actual content if so much times wasn't squashed on AFDs and admin boards that are much longer than the articles and for which more time is spent than on actually looking for sources! When I see on ANI at least one account who has made far more immflammatory comments (condemning not just a handful of editors, but hundreds as "slackjawed retards") actually complaining about someone else's approach, it's just...how much hypocrisy do we need? We should agree that articles should be referenced, sure, but we should not delete anything that is not blatant gibberish without actually checking thoroughly for ourseleves if sources exist and then adding them and I suspect that is what Ikip is really after.

Statement by Collect

Ikip has faults to be sure (as do most active editors). This arbitration is not in any way a reasonable way to proceed. Indeed, it is far more likely to cause drama than to reduce it. Much is a result of the prior ArbCom BLP motion which, in my opinion, ought to have been clarified in the past (see my earlier comments regarding that decision). Ikip has valuable positions, opinions and insights which ought not be deterred from being expressed. Therefore I would sincerely hope this action is rejected. Collect (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

@Coffee: I disagree that all the BLP discussions have no connection with the ArbCom motion. I do find your statement difficult to follow as a result. I also disagree that this RFAR is the place for such a colloquy. Collect (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by YellowMonkey

This is a waste of time. Running after Ikip isn't going to prevent any BLP violations, most of which come through deliberate or deluded source misrepresentation, including by established editors that can't be dislodged by one person. Until people do check sources, which isn't happening at the moment, no official paperwork makes any difference, as with many lawless areas of Wikipedia and it will just be the pro/anti groups on political or ethnic lines on there white/blackwashing battles. Sticking to the basics has never been valued or rewarded on Wikipedia, no wonder it's been in such a state with endless politicking, gaming metrics and gimmickry taking centre stage YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Okip

I have no desire to continue quarreling with Scott Okip 10:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/2/3)

• Recuse - I am one of the editors who has already given Okip/Ikip my personal feedback that his behaviour is inappropriate on his talk page. Risker (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse - similar reasons as Risker. I warned Ikip about this behaviour Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I left a comment on the BLP discussion that I thought that Okip would be better served by continuing towards working for a BLP policy we all can live with, not just one HE can live with and forget those on the other side, but he continued on. I can sympathize with those wanting this to be handled at the higher levels here, but the other comments are right. This is not an "unusually divisive issue amongst administrators" which is the exception to bypassing previous DR attempts. If, after an RFC (to be focused only on Ikip/Okip's actions, and not to be used as a proxy to re-litigate the BLP RfC, please), there still needs to be further action, then bring it back here. But right now, I'm not seeing it as acceptable. That may change, however.. I will leave it as a comment for now, not a decline. SirFozzie (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Want to correct something, Peregrine. We haven't decided "not to investigate sofixit", it's that there's no way for us to investigate. It is private, members-only, and to the best of my knowledge, no arbitrators are members, and again, to the best of my knowledge, no one has come forward with anything stronger then allegations of possible collusion amongst the unknown members of that forum. Serious accusations require serious evidence, and we just do not have it. If anyone does have anything more then allegations, please feel free to mail ArbCom or to present it as eveidence. Until then, we're not going to chase after ghosts. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Question for those urging an RFC: Are you suggesting an RFC because i. you think this has a reasonable chance of being resolved by an RFC, ii. you think that an ArbCom case will proceed more orderlarily if issues have been hashed out at an RFC first, and/or iii. you believe on principle that ArbCom shouldn't take cases until the community has clearly failed to resolve them? That's an earnest question, incidentally, and any sarcastic-seeming undertones are unintentional (I don't need to make clever sarcastic points now that I'm an arb; I can just decree stuff, sort of like how I decreed that "orderlarily" is a word). Steve Smith (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Accept. The AN thread does not seem to be going anywhere and, in view of past dispute resolution around similar issues (as pointed out by Mr. Z-Man), I'm not convinced that an RFC would be helpful. Steve Smith (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikidemon sums up the situation very well. Some modest editing restriction may well be in order. But I would not support anything at this time beyond that. Regarding the secret forum, we are generally without knowledge. We have heard rumors, but have not examined anything in relation to is as some have suggested. If someone were to bring a case, we would consider it as we do all cases. KnightLago (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Decline - I think the community can work this out. KnightLago (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Decline - You've really got to give the community some chance at working things out first. If talking with Ikip didn't help, the next step would be to discuss the disruption somewhere. The BLP discussion is important, but I don't think Ikip is fooling anyone here. Shell ^babelfish 01:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as premature for arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hold pending statement from Okip (Ikip). I ask that he post a statement soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hold pending Ikip's statement, but I'm leaning toward decline - this seems like something that the community can handle on their own either by a) blocking Ikip or b) getting him to see why others have a problem, thus correcting the issue. ArbCom's not the best group to carry out either of these options. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight

Initiated by Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} at 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• ChildofMidnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I wish to bring to the attention of the Arbitration Committee the conduct of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as I believe we have issues which need the involvement of the committee. ChildofMidnight injects himself into just about every single high drama discussion on Wikipedia. Instead of helping to resolve the dispute, he flings personal attack and cries of admin abuse left right and centre. His recent RfC documents this quite well with a long list of unsourced accusations against other editors and general defamation of other contributors. The RfC showed extremely strong support towards the filer with a large number of contributors helping to certify the RfC and few people commenting in support of ChildofMidnight - this shows that his behaviour is viewed as unacceptable by a large proportion of the community. Since his RfC, he has continued his battleground mentality in the global warming topic (and that is clearly one which needs calm minds rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality). This has led to a long thread currently on the administrators' noticeboard (see here for the discussion) which was started because ChildofMidnight was blocked. Whilst the block for a specific incident was in my opinion (and a few others) viewed as poor and he was swiftly unblocked, the long thread that has ensued shows that ChildofMidnight has continued to display his problematic behaviour despite his recent RfC.

It should be pointed out that ChildofMidnight was subjected to two remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles - He was topic banned from Obama articles and admonished and restriced. Putting this together with his problematic conduct in the global warming field, this is clearly an editor who is disruptive in a number of high drama areas and I believe the Arbitration Committee are the best people to look over his conduct and decide on appropriate remedies. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

CoM should feel free to add his statement above this, I'm more of an observer here. I just wanted to point out that the list of parties does not really reflect the breadth and depth of disputes in which CoM is involved, but the list of certifying parties and statements on the RfC is quite compelling. Durova, in particular, is these days a torch-bearer for WP:AGF. Several people have opined that CoM could save an awful lot of trouble by just ditching the hyperbole and superfluous rhetoric, but the reverse seems to be happening. Even if it did happen I see a user who is not right enough of the time to justify the tenacity with which they approach every single dispute; fights seem to be picked almost at random and based largely on the admins involved not the merits or otherwise of the individual case.

I think a topic ban on climate change (to add to Obama) and an injunction against becoming involved in other people's disputes is probably the only way short of an outright siteban to reduce the massive time-sink caused by this user. It's been steeply downhill since he Godwinated a discussion last year and I don't see any way out of that hole without forcibly separating him from all his current conflicts and stopping him taking on any new ones. That is, of course, if the committee even thinks he's worth one last final last last final last chance after all the others... Guy (Help!) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Addendum: it's a pity that CoM chose to respond by giving an outstanding example of his recent WP:ABF style rather than indicating how he might reduce friction in future. Guy (Help!)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I suppose I know as much about this situation as anyone, having initiated the RfC about ChildofMidnight after months of interactions that were, to say the least, nettlesome. It should be said at the outset that ChildofMidnight views me quite negatively, so no one should take on faith what I have to say here as I cannot be described as a completely disinterested observer, though I think I've generally been pretty objective throughout this ongoing problem and have genuinely worked in the spirit of "resolving a dispute."

I've really hoped to avoid an ArbCom case, and I'd still like to do that. If others deem it necessary and the committee wants to take the case then that's fine too, but I still can't help thinking that we should be able to resolve this outside of a case. I particularly draw the committee's attention (and that of other editors) to this subthread of the discussion on WP:AN already referenced by Ryan, where User:Spartaz has proposed a possible remedy that has gained the support of a couple of other people. Unfortunately that conversation seems to be flagging and possibly does not have enough eyes, but some sort of community-imposed remedy regarding ChildofMidnight seems more ideal than an ArbCom case (for one thing we haven't tried it yet), though I understand the argument for coming straight here instead.

At base I view this as a sad and completely avoidable situation. The consensus of the RfC was clear—ChildofMidnight does a lot of good work and is valued as a contributor to this project but also has caused an unacceptable amount of disruption. The latter could be corrected very easily by simply adopting a different approach to interactions with other editors, which would in part require a healthy injection of assume good faith into ChildofMidnight's approach to Wikipedia matters. C of M has in the past raised complaints which are valid, but often (not always, which is why there is hope) does so with such vitriol and the-other-fella/lady-is-evil mentality that it proves enormously disruptive to collaborative editing. What is sad to me is that this is completely unnecessary, yet numerous good-faith efforts to steer ChildofMidnight onto the straight and narrow have fallen on deaf ears (the helpful comments here are just the latest example).

ChildofMidnight undoubtedly thinks I have it in for him and unfortunately I cannot convince him otherwise, but in no way is that the case. My involvement in all of this is completely by happenstance and goes back to doing admin work on the Obama articles last spring, and at this point I just want the problems so clearly documented (and agreed to) in the RfC to stop and for ChildofMidnight to continue editing as they do 80-90% of the time—constructively and in good faith. If ArbCom can come up with remedies that help (and personally I would not even consider supporting anything as drastic as a ban or lengthy block at this point) then I'm all for it. If the community can come up with a workable approach on the WP:AN thread then that's great too. The status quo is not working though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the scope, while I agree with JohnWBarber that there are a lot of problems with the global warming editing nexus, I don't think that should be rolled into an ArbCom case about ChildofMidnight if we have one. Examining other editors who have had significant contact with ChildofMidnight could of course be appropriate, but if we need an Arb case for AGW articles that should be completely separate as it goes well beyond ChildofMidnight, and ChildofMidnight's issues go well beyond global warming articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnWBarber

It's a bit of an odd time to be filing this against CoM, because he hasn't done anything even worth a block recently, he's taken a break and he's taken back some of the statements he made that others objected to. Nevertheless, the issues surrounding him go way back and it's difficult for any single person to read through the huge history. Numerous friendly editors have asked CoM to chill out, and I'm willing to chat with him about this in private in order to keep the situation calm.

Ryan Postlethwaite writes: battleground mentality in the global warming topic (and that is clearly one which needs calm minds rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality). True, and therefore RP's focus is too narrow. CoM is far, far, far from the only editor at the AGW ("anthropogenic global warming") articles with sharp words coming from his keyboard. The focus of this should be broadened to include the continued problems at those articles. The general sanctions regime has helped move some of the incivility and personal attacks off the discussion pages and onto the sanctions reports page, which is an improvement, but accusations that admins are playing favorites may be true. Over at A/N, I haven't been able to get a good explanation from User:BozMo about his differing treatment of CoM and William Connolley.

The focus of this should also be broadened to include behavior by editors who attack CoM, repeatedly, without provocation. CoM's own reaction to these attacks is sometimes unfortunate, but the attacks against him are real, provocative and hurtful. It'd be in the best interests of Wikipedia to straighten out User:Tarc, User:Mathsci and probably others. I've posted some diffs about those two at the A/N discussion and I've got a few more to add here when I have time. (Tarc vs. CoM: [24] [25] [26] Tarc's attitude at AN/I [27] and at warning admin's talk page [28] and later [29] MATHSCI vs. CoM: here's a combination of many edits by CoM, minding his own business back in October [30], and here's a sudden visitation from William Connolley [31] and hot on Connolley's heels is Mathsci to revert all of CoM's work [32], that Oct 8, 2009 edit is the only time Mathsci ever had an interest in editing Honey; more: [33] [34], read this short thread and edit summary from Dec 15 [35] M's reaction is to what looks like friendly raillery based on M's Dec 5 announced [36] participation in his "bacon challenge"); then, twelve days [37] and thirteen days [38] after the Dec 15 dust-up, CoM is fine for Mathsci to chat with. Then it's back to antagonism later. If Mathsci was friendly with CoM for a while, what made him so upset with CoM later? If M's participation in CoM's "bacon challenge" wasn't friendly, why did M say he would participate? If M finds CoM so obnoxious, why did M chat with CoM on his talk page in late December, two weeks after the last tiff? Mathsci was either disturbingly erratic or playing some kind of weird, taunting game with CoM. Either way, it's spooky a wild rollercoaster of friendliness and intensely angry words that, if it were directed at me, would bother me mostly for its bizarre swings; but I don't know everything that was going on, and perhaps CoM is/was fine with it. It seems to me it would make the environment stressful.

No editor should have to put up with Tarc's and Mathsci's behavior (most of which is outside the AGW article area).

When CoM complains about being unfairly treated, he's right in at least some occasions I've seen and probably wrong at other times. Admins get upset at him and some of his statements invite that. Postlethwaite calling him a "drama-loving troll" at the top of his A/N posting, a statement that was totally unnecessary to RP's stated purpose for the thread, is a small example of bad admin behavior. User:BozMo's block seems to be another. It might be worthwhile for ArbCom to appoint volunteer admins to handle the AGW general sanctions regime: I don't know if the accusations of biased conduct against admins there are true, but in principle it would be easy for biased admins to be attracted there for just the same reason that biased editors are. If biased admins are found to be a problem, ArbCom could appoint very seasoned, even-tempered admins who can keep their own POV out of the picture. Wikipedia sucks at covering big, controversial, hot topics, and this is one way of improving the picture. The AGW brouhaha is heading back to ArbCom anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)promised diffs about Tarc and Mathsci added -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• @RyanPostlethwaite For someone complaining of CoM's unsourced accusations against other editors where was the sourcing for "drama loving troll" in the statement you refuse to take back [39] days after you posted it? Come to think of it, how exactly would one source that broad, vague insult (at the top of an A/N thread, no less)? If ArbCom takes the case, use it as an opportunity to remind admins not to sink to the level they're accusing others of stooping down to. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• @Mathsci -- refactored, replacing "spooky" with what I meant by it. I certainly hope I'm misreading the history; no personal attack intended. Tension between Mathsci and CoM is the only relevant subject here and all I have to comment on regarding Mathsci. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• @CoM -- I haven't tried getting ahold of CoM off-wiki. I was putting it off, and I don't know if I'll ever try, now. I have better things to do with my time than be involved with this. After having had time to calm down, he's very publicly made personal attacks -- disparaging comments about the character of fellow editors without providing any evidence. As Durova pointed out, RyanPostlethwaite's language doesn't exactly help CoM concentrate on his own past behavior, but that doesn't excuse CoM. He has no excuse for this. If you're reading this, ChildofMidnight, let me repeat: There is no excuse for this. I agree with (or found plausible) nearly everything you said in your statement other than the personal attacks -- made without providing evidence. I've spent time trying to defend you by putting some of your conduct in context. But this is the type of conduct you've been warned about in the past,[40] and yet you flaunt your disregard for those warnings right here. You've just provided definitive evidence that, at least right now, both you and Wikipedia would be better off with a parting of the ways. Attacking more editors, including ArbCom members in front of ArbCom is worse than stupid, it's wrong. It's the kind of behavior I've strenuously objected to from others. It's the kind of behavior that gets justified blocks. I don't know whether, if CoM had been treated better in the past (there is a long history of bad blocks later overturned), this editor would have been much less trouble. I doubt we'll ever know. Wikipedia isn't set up for consistently great behavior from admins -- they're volunteers, untrained and self-select for the actions they take, so everyone can be expected to get batted around a bit, the angrier editors more than others. I wish he'd stuck to creating articles like Pissing contest rather than participating in them. I can't believe he mentions returning to Wikipedia. We're in indefinite-block territory here, no return without a promise to abide by behavior policies, and not for a while. Too bad, damn fine content editor who had some good insights about the encyclopedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• @Mathsci: To my knowledge I have never conducted "attack after attack" on CoM. Attack [41] after attack [42] after attack [43]. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• @Mathsci: As for Mathsci being offended with CoM's question about a choice of spanking implements, Mathsci appears to have given the impression that the joke was at least not particularly offensive to him by reacting this way [44] to CoM's first mention of that kind of corporal punishment. By itself, the final insult in that thread isn't a big deal, but it's part of a months-long pattern. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Barber's name-dropping jabs aside... it is regrettable that it has to come to this; ChildofMidnight perceives a great many editors, admins, and ArbCom members lined up against him, but in reality, his greatest opponent is himself. AN and AN/I have been tried. Topic bans, interaction bans, Arb Enforcements, Amendments, blocks imposed, some stick, some get rescinded. An RfC concluded with overwhelming opinion that CoM needed to change his ways, and he wrapped it up by launching broadsides against the completely uninvolved admin who closed it. This has been a long and steady downward spiral ever since last year's case, and it seems that another ArbCom is an inevitability. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum; this really should not be viewed through just the narrow lens of the global warming mess, as this are behavioral issues that far predate that. All of the stuff going on in that topic area is probably heading to ArbCom sooner or later all on its own by the looks of it. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5*

I've recently encountered Child of Midnight (CoM) in the Climate Change articles, which are under probation. There are concerns about maintaining a NPOV, incivil article ownership and bias Probation Enforcement [45] [46]. Fortunately, CoM is one of the few who has made efforts to raise awareness to help improve the article environment (this is in my motivation here too); however, he was then caught up in a bad (maybe bias itself) block that preceded this Arbitration request. I believe this editor has fair and meritorious intentions for Wikipedia. His style has upset others; however, he has demonstrated good humor and diligence to go in where others run away, or are driven off, so as to benefit this project and .... the other editors who may be suffering a bad wrap. Admonishing his tone of language might be beneficial; however, I believe restricting his topics will not help Wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to CoM's statement

Following CoM's statement above, it seems as if the editor is saying the reason this case is requested, has to do with the environment in the Climate Change general sanctions [47]. I agree with this. There was a Bad Block placed on CoM after commenting there, then while being 1 week blocked, there was a General Sanction enforcement request place on CoM. Then an ANI notice to release the block for the General Sanction enforcement request to proceed (which was released). Then this ArbCom request followed and overlapped. That's three actions (4 total) which overlapped this one [48], which is now suspended pending the result here. I would say the Bad Block started this recent chain; however, CoM is obviously not immune from folks wishing to complain. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Plea for Context

It seems wise to focus this case on CoM; however, ignoring the context and motivations for the editor in this complaint would not seem beneficial. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

View by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't think the listed parties would need any assistance to turn this case into an exceptionally ugly one. So if there are other means of resolving the issues, I strongly advise to bang the parties heads together and make them use those methods; the sense of urgency probably only adds more heat than light in the disputes (plural) being raised in this request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

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

JohnWBarber is an alternative account of Noroton, an editor with a history of incivility on wikipedia and the use of multiple accounts. He left a message on my talk page informing me of his contribution above. Noroton is not an editor in good standing. What he has written is an inflammatory and inaccurate diatribe, which I am now disregarding and which would normally merit a block.

ChildofMidnight has not understood the message of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. Several arbitrators have already commented on the problematic nature of his contributions on project pages. CoM is a likeable wikipedian whose articles, particularly on food-related topics, are a very positive contribution to wikipedia. However, on project pages, he displays a different kind of behaviour which is highly disruptive, sprinkled with inflammatory and often inaccurate statements. This has become particularly problematic on the Climate Change probation pages, where he seems set on targeting a series of good faith editors and administrators. I do not edit GW articles, nor have I ever expressed a view on the subject on wikipedia. Since the community has not been able to find a mechanism to get CoM to tone down his behaviour in project space, hopefully ArbCom can now find a way forward. CoM has much that is constructive to contribute to wikipedia, but can occasionally be his own worst enemy when he lets himself get carried away. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge I have never conducted "attack after attack" on CoM. If at any stage after CoM's very recent RfC/U I have criticized CoM's rants on the Climate Change probation page or other project pages before their occurrence, I'd like to know. Normally I just point them out afterwards, like several arbitrators and multiple administrators. Am I missing something here? CoM should try to calm down and write sensibly, not just silly petulant nonsense. These outbursts by CoM have no place on wikipedia. They are a replay of his problematic conduct on Obama pages. At some stage CoM has to take responsibility for his baseless personal attacks on other users (repeated below alas). His current attacks on me are slightly milder than those he has recently made on User:Rlevse and User:2over0. So I assume if he wants to implicate me as a party in this case, these and numerous other good faith editors, about whom he has made outspoken statements recently, should also be included. The list would be pretty long. Mathsci (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment ChildofMidnight has complained profusely about the term "old fruit" (= "old bean" in British English). He on the other hand felt at liberty on my talk page to request which implement should be used for spanking me. [49] I can't quite understand why JohnWBarber/Noroton seems to think that removing remarks on spanking by ChildofMidnight from my own talk page with the edit summary "rv idiotic trolling" is a personal attack. (I would guess ChildofMidnight was trying to shock me by escalating the tone of his remarks; I did find the later remarks offensive and not the sort of thing I like to have on my talk page. JohnWBarber obviously strongly disapproves of this view.) Nor can I quite understand why reminding ChildofMidnight of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight during his month-long campaign of disruption on project pages constitutes a personal attack. I can understand that JohnWBarber has determined to defend ChildofMidnight by whatever means he has at his disposal: lacking any evidence, he seems to be grasping at straws. I have a vague memory that his history as Noroton involved similar episodes directly involving ChildofMidnight, but arbitrators are probably more aware of that than me. Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

JzG has developed a skill for diplomacy. Not sure if I deserve his kind words, but here goes. We've all been concerned that this was headed toward either arbitration or a community sanction. ChildofMidnight is a prolific article creator mostly on encyclopedic and uncontroversial subjects, but has become better known to the community at large for two hot button political topics and for noticeboard participation which is often counterproductive.

CoM can be responsive to feedback when it's provided respectfully and gently. A few days ago a community consensus agreed that the most recent block on CoM was unnecessary, then CoM announced a wikibreak. That break is a very good idea. Although the break and that degree of responsiveness probably aren't enough to resolve the problems, they are steps in the right direction.

The best long term results usually happen when we encourage steps in the right direction. We have all seen the occasional administrator who blocks an editor shortly after the editor makes a retraction: it discourages the editor from attempts to be reasonable--why even try to do things right when one is going to get it anyway? The same effect holds true for arbitration. So although this case request is meritorious in many ways, it's also timed and framed in ways that undermine its chances of any good outcome and filed by someone whose recent statements have been heated.[50][51]

Where is this headed? Suppose one takes Ryan Postlethwaite's opinion at face value; the counterargument is that trolls thrive in muddy waters and this is messier than it needs to be. I view CoM as a very good writer of culinary articles who runs a malfunctioning wheat-from-chaff separator and is equally sincere about whichever result it produces. If my Wiki Witch Crystal Ball^TM is working, CoM will view Ryan's filing as a vendetta, and will react with an indignation that will appear--from Ryan's perspective--to confirm Ryan's worst opinions while leaving the Committee with very few options for remedy. Meanwhile a chorus of global warming skeptics will claim biased treatment and those complaints will resurface at the next global warming arbitration. Child of Midnight may need arbitration soon and perhaps another filing will happen next month or next summer. If so it would probably start on a better footing. If you want to do anything other than siteban CoM, please reject this case.

Update: best wishes, all. I sure hope this ends better than the trajectory appears. Durova⁴¹² 20:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by TS

I suggest that the most timely and drama-free way to address the problems would be to extend existing remedies by motion noting the community's feelings about the disruptive aspects of this otherwise valued volunteer, and curtailing his undesirable pot-stirring. --Tasty monster 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC) (Tony Sidaway on phone)

I agree with the people who are saying you have to keep a tight rein on this. I won't go near it because the lack of restraint of the principal defendant, which is the very subject of the case, makes this a potential disaster area. Just try to keep a lid on it, meine Kamaraden. You still have the option to make this into a motion extending existing restraints on this editor, taking into account the unusually strong consensus arising in the RFC in January. I suggest that the alternative of a long, drawn-out case will be bloody and completely inappropriate to the purpose. --TS 02:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BozMo

Personally I sympathise most strongly with both of Guy and Durova above. At times CoM seems to make insightful comments and be an interesting contributor and at others he seems almost to be throwing a tantrum; accusing any authority of abuse without any differentiation. As a parent, I have learned that patience and positive feedback work better in the long run than sanctions but as a parent I have both stronger obligations and also a better foundation of relationship than exists for dealing with an editor like CoM on Wikipedia. Whether we should move to ban CoM from certain areas or behaviours or try to rebuild mutual trust per Durova in the end is a reflection on whether you think Wikipedia is a community or a project. The answer to this question is not trivial. --BozMo talk 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

There have been some very insightful statements made here already, and I'm only marginally involved so I'll be brief. CoM is a great contributor of content in many areas, but he often responds in an overly-defensive manner if he feels attacked and has repeatedly failed to AGF with his fellow editors. However, he is far from the only user involved in what he has correctly characterized as a "toxic environment" surrounding climate change related articles. This situation is becoming a real embarrassment to the project, and I think stricter, swifter enforcement of the already existing sanctions in this area, and possibly expanding those restrictions is something the committee should also consider. Many users, including myself, don't want to touch these articles with a ten foot pole at this point because of all the acrimony on the talk pages, and the never-ending TLDR circular debates that never seem to be resolved. I realize the matter under discussion is CoM's behavior, but there is also a larger issue to consider here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Aymatth2

CoM is an original and prolific editor who has started many useful articles and improved many others, often pushing the boundaries and adding a lot of value. CoM sometimes tries to remove perceived bias from articles on controversial subjects. That can lead to kickback from editors with different opinions, and to passionate, heated and sometimes futile debates. When my children were small they often got into arguments with each other. My advice to them was "I don't care who started it, quit fighting". Years later, we are still on good terms. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to example [52]

I looked at this diff, which was puzzling. Then I scrolled down and looked at the exchange: typical of CoM. See User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive_15#EWUB. Maybe I am just as bad, which is why I don't see the problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ChildofMidnight

I apologize for the delay in my response. The hounding and attacks have gotten to be a bit much for me so I'm taking a break. I'm not sure when I'll get back on Wiki, but when I do return I plan on focusing my time on article work and am going to do everything I can to minimize my time spent dealing with this kind of clusterfuck of smeary attacks, inimidating threats, and hounding insults.

This request comes from someone I have no dispute with whatsover. They've engaged in couple of broad smears that were rather vicious. These were particularly unhelpful as they came when I was dealing with a bad block, but I don't see any evidence of a dispute with Ryan. The lack of diffs is telling. I don't even have any involvements with Ryan and can't recall any areas where we edit together, but he's most welcome to bring any concerns or issues he has to me so we can discuss them collegially. I will note that while he invokes the Obama Arbcom atrocity, there isn't any recent dispute in that topic area that I'm involved in, and it's a subject where I continue to make useful article improvements in a productive and collegial manner. So it's clear that he doesn't have much idea what he's talking about.

It's also disturbing to see Arbs saying things like "let's make sure we focus solely on CoM". Fuck that. You better believe you'll have to answer for why an activist on Climate issues who operates an off-wiki attack site where he disparages those he disagrees with is allowed to bring those efforts on Wikipedia in order to distort our climate articles and smear article subjects he disagree with.

You'll also have to explain why Tarc and Mathsci have been allowed to relentlessly seek out conflict with me over issues where they have no onvolvement and why they continue to be allowed to engage in attack after attack after attack on me without any of you saying a thing.

And you'll have to explain why repeated violations of Arbcom's restrictions on those who have a long history of stalking and antagonizing me are allowed on Bigtimepeace's talk page, where he continues to engage with editors trying to harasms me via proxy since they're no longer able to do so directly. This goes on even though Bigtimepeace isn't working on any articles where I'm active.

There's also the problem that Risker, Coren and Rlevse have already expressed prejudicial objections to my being very open about the disdain I have for their assaults on Wikipedia's traditions of openness and transparency, and for their antagnoistic pursuit of editors they disagree with, a clear breach of the trust the community has put in them.

I agree with the editors who have noted that this filing is fundamentally flawed and that there are better way to deal with the issues being thrown together. I'm a good faith editor who works on lots of subjects with many editors. In contentious areas there are those who create disruptions and attempt to intimidate and harass those they disagree with in order to chase them off, but this kind of thuggery should never be allowed or encouraged.

I don't recall Ryan's ever approaching me with a concern, so the idea that he's pursued dispute resolution is preposterous. If collegiality, civility and fairness mean anything, this case will be denied so we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia, but if it is to be heard, let's be absolutely clear about what we'll be discussing:

The civility problem on Wikipedia is the harassment, intimidation, and hounding that's allowed, tolerated, and sometimes encouraged.

If this case is accepted by Arbcom the committee members will have a lot of explaining to do about why these behaviors have been allowed to continue. The lack of appropriate actions to address these problems, and the outrageous sanctioning of victims of these improper behaviors has encouraged the most grotesque of Orwellian toxic environments. Dealing with these problems is long overdue. The bullying and nastiness from those trying to pervert our article content against policy and consensus needs to be stopped.

If the committee chooses to accept this case, despite no evidence of any dispute between Ryan and myself, despite his making grotesque attacks on me which I responded to with laudable restraint (only to find that he reiterated the same attack) you will all have awful lot of explaining to do. No mediation has been attempted by Ryan, no dispute resolution, and no communications with me directly. I'm not sure what he's upset about exactly, but as far as I can tell he's a good editor who appears to just be going through a rough patch, and I think it's best to let it go at that. 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Plea by Spartaz

Given CoM's open declaration that they intend to extend the scope of this case outside the parameters that the committee appears to be setting and the very agressive language with which they made this declaration, please can the committee instruct the case clerks to deal firmly with any such attempts as this has the possibility to go down the same disgraceful route as Abd-WMC did. That is unless the clerks take a much firmer line then last time. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded by Heimstern

Please, listen to Spartaz. Do it. No more allowing off-topic rants, and no more allowing insinuation after insinuation like happened at ArbMac2: Make people accuse openly or shut it. Please. ArbCases are WikiHell. There's no reason those who are not the disruptive ones should have to suffer like they have in the past. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Just noting that it may be a while before a response is posted as on the 13th ChildofMidnight felt that a short break was in order, posted here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/2)

• Accept. Steve Smith (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Noting that if this case evolves in a direction that is primarily or even largely about the AGW issue, I will recuse. Steve Smith (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Planning on accepting, but do not like to formally accept a case until both sides have a chance to make a statement. SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Accept Now that CoM has made his statement, there are issues that ArbCom is necessary for here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to hear what ChildofMidnight has to say.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Awaiting some response from ChildofMidnight. Should the case be accepted, I would be inclined to restrict it to CoM's editorial behaviour; this is not the proposed case in which to consider the climate/global warming issue as a whole. Risker (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept and restrict to CoM's behavior. Shell ^babelfish 04:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hold until ChildOfMidnight either submits a statement or resumes regular editing without submitting one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Accept Fritzpoll (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Retired Arb

• Accept - Limiting the case to ChildofMidnight's conduct, and those users immediately involved therein. I do not think examining the entire climate/global warming issue as a whole at this point would be a productive use of our time. KnightLago (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept; noting that the global warming issue is out of scope and will not be examined. — Coren ^(talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept; per KL — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 04:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)