User:Wikidemon/Obama articles arbitration

Reverting vandalism

 * 1) Reverting vandalism with rude edit summary.
 * 2) Simple apparent vandalism reverted with rude edit summary ("let the trolls eat cake) and block warning. Editor apologizes and explains as unintentional.  No significant disruption.
 * 3) Simple vandalism (e.g. "Barack Obama(A.K.A the retard that is screwing up our country) "). Editor warned twice then blocked as "vandalism-only account".
 * 4) Simple vandalism or test edits (e.g. "third homosexual") warned twice with an added incivility ("Please don't edit wikipedia while using recreational substances"). No further trouble.
 * 5) Cheerful vandalism reverted without fanfare often with less fanfare than angry vandalism. That is not necessarily a double standard.  Wikipedia exists in a context of real world events.

Reverting nonconsensus edits

 * 1) Simple reversion of nonconsensus material.
 * 2) Repeated addition of nonconsensus/fringe (Kenyan nationality, association with "terrorist" William Ayers) Editor is warned twice then stops.

Reverting poor edits
Given that it is a featured article, most content proposals are not improvements and are quietly rejected with no ensuing disruption.
 * 1) Dubious material politely reverted.
 * 2) Weak edit courteously reverted per WP:BRD.

Collapsing threads

 * 1) Inappropriate discussion politely closed.
 * 2) Unproductive discussion politely closed.
 * 3) Resolved discussion politely closed.
 * 4) Inappropriate discussion closed with rude summary.

Retitling threads

 * 1) Section heading retitled for clarity.
 * 2) Section heading retitled to be less inflammatory.

Consolidating and moving redundant or related threads

 * 1) Several threads on the same subject moved to the same place.
 * 2) Similar discussions consolidated.
 * 3) Similar discussions consolidated.

Threads and comments deleted

 * 1) Friendly WP:NOT delete.
 * 2) Friendly WP:NOT delete.
 * 3) Friendly WP:NOT delete.
 * 4) Uncivil delete.[
 * 5) Uncivil delete.

Sockpuppets identified

 * 1) Kordon Bleu and Gordon Bleu.  and later, two WP:SPAs who only edited Obama-related articles.   Posted a series of trollish proposals that in hindsight seemed to be for purposes of incitement: Obama is not a US citizen, bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, one of the FAQs is a "lie", Obama's half-brother was accused of a sex assault, Obama unpopular in Europe, not enough criticism in article, Obama wears body armor.
 * 2) Inaccurate "unpopular in Europe" claim was seriously discussed, creating minor talk forum-like dispute.
 * 3) "Birth certificate fraud" claim reverted as a "rant" inappropriate to talk pages.
 * 4) Supposed bow to the King of Saudi Arabia discussed politely.
 * 5) Refactored title, and responded to claim, that FAQ #9 is a "lie".
 * 6) Left article probation notice and log with long note on editor's talk page (per WP:AGF) trying to explain what the problem was and how they could contribute more productively (likely a waste because editor did not seem to be operating in good faith).
 * 7) WP:SPI filed against editor and three other accounts.
 * 8) All eventually blocked as socks.

Engaging a didicult editor

 * 1) reacts to harsh warning during Aaron Klein incident from  ("Please stop being so disruptive and keep your biases to yourself")  with incivilities ("Wikipedia seems to attract fanatical leftists who will stop at nothing to intimidate and protect their dear leader PBHO"). Rejects article probation notice by  with incivilities ("Wikipedia seems to be like the Nazi Regime of Facists to control information, you can't even question their partisan facts of their dear leader PBHO.)  Embarks on long-term campaign to remove questionable content comparing Obama's speaking style to Ronald Reagan, with aggressive edit summaries (e.g. "just liberal fantasy from a few partisan writers").  Warned of article probation.  Responds with screed "that Wikipedia is just another appendage of the wild, leftist, lame-stream media run amuk with liberal ideaologies and theories".  72 hour blocked by, and later 24 hour block by  under article probation / WP:3RR.  Although the disruption stopped, it was not entirely avoided.  The editor is an SPA with a suspicious editing pattern that could have been dealt with sooner.  No sign that the prior blocks and warnings had an effect, but the editor may have stopped editing.

Response to ChildofMidnight evidence
Outside of Arbcom's earshot ChildofMidnight declares me a "disgrace" and a "joker" plotting with other editors "off on some IRC channel" for "bullshit and game playing" and "making the latest round of false accousations and trying to block good faith editors" I don't agree with, personal attacks, grandstanding, abuse, "obscene" censorship, playing games, vandalism, acting not in good faith, POV pushing partisanship, and harassment. ChildofMidnight "will not remain silent" in the face of my "ongoing disruption, capital V vandalism, and abuse", all protected by my "powerful friends".  All in the last 24 hours!

Last month it was "shameful", "disgraceful", "coordinat[ing] attacks", behaving like an "animal", and "trolling", who "works almost exclusively" on POV political content and should be topic banned or blocked

The month before I should have been topic banned too.

This has been going on for five months! I'm skipping a bunch of intermediate accusations but shortly after joining the project, Childofmidnight was already dcoaching another difficult editor how to insert a BLP violation on an Obama-related page, declaring that I am a "tyrant" and "bully" who chooses to game and disrupt, baits other users to trick them into blockable behavior, and "don't care for the spirit of the project".

Accusations in this case
ChildofMidnight provides a series of diffs here, which he uses to complain elsewhere on the encyclopedia that I am "one of the main offenders" in this ArbCom case.. According to ChildofMidnght's evidence as presented, my offenses are as follows:


 * 1) Removes a comment 
 * Deleting this comment was the right thing to do. As documented above, article patrollers regularly remove redundant and fringe discussions from Obama talk pages - this was well within that practice., the poster, was acting suspiciously to begin with and it looked more like trolling than an invitation to discussion.  The subject was a complaint that Wikipedia editors were censoring the truth that Obama is a British rather than a US citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.  Anyone who wanted to discuss this WP:FRINGE claim on the page at the time had two threads where discussion had already started on that topic.  In my judgment adding a third, more combative, fork to the other two was likely to create a talk page mess and was unlikely to further any discussion.  Soon after, Axmann8 was blocked four times in quick succession, banned from politics articles, then indefinitely blocked for racism and other disruption.
 * 1) Files an ANI report and is advised to be respectful and civil to other editors .
 * ChildofMidnight has the wrong editor. The AN/I report was a request for help to calm an edit war ChildofMidnight fomented on the Obama talk page - exactly what AN/I is for.  I was not "advised to be respectful and civil to other editors".  Scjessey was.  The comment by QueenofBattle in CoM's diff is not about me.
 * 1) Says, "...Obama has not been President for very long, and there are (despite what partisans would wish to say off Wikipedia) simply no scandals or controversies of a magnitude comparable to those involving Bush, and particularly Clinton... Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)''
 * ChildofMidnight misunderstands the phrase "off Wikipedia". I was studiously careful there, as usual, to be civil to my fellow editors.  My reference is  to partisanship "off" wikipedia (i.e. people other than Wikipedia editors) and cast no stones about anyone on Wikipedia.
 * 1) And also some borderline refactoring of another editor's thread title 
 * Retitling threads is common practice. As shown on the evidence page consolidating, retitling, and moving a large number of threads kept things orderly on the Obama talk page.  In this case I retitled a thread from "Editors and administrators are suppressing dissent....this is a very troubling trend" to the more neutral and informative "Criticism of Obama", that actually reflected any legitimate topic under discussion there.
 * 1) Removes another editor's post 
 * Deleting blatant WP:COPYVIOs is an imperative, not an offense. The entire contents of the post I removed were a provocative thread title, followed by a link and then a cut-and-paste (the third that day - see here) of the storied storied World Net Daily article, in which Aaron Klein accuses Wikipedia of censorship for refusing to allow Obama birthplace conspiracy information and for blocking the User:Jerusalem21 account.
 * 1) Wikidemon refactor's another editor's section thread: Here's the other's editor's comment  that seems quite reasonable.  [...] Wikidemon replies "As I told you, changing talk headings is fine...  Then Wikidemon collapses the discussion thread .
 * ChildofMidnight has his/her editors wrong again. This is the same as complaint #4, above.  The editor was clearly using the Obama talk page, in the middle of the Aaron Klein fiasco, to make Klein's point that Wikipedia editors were engaging in whitewashing and censorship.  There was no actionable proposal in the post, it was entirely a criticism of other editors for "blatant censorship".  It was duplicative of several dozen other posts that day that voiced the User:Jerusalem21 / Aaron Klein contention that a Wikipedia cabal was censoring material in defense of Obama.  I let most of them stand so that we could explain, but consolidated them and improved the headings, and closed some after everyone had their say.  I believe the process and my edit comments and summary are textbook Wikipedia policy to guide the talk page.  That is standard, and proper practice for dealing with redundant unconstructive discussion topics on an extremely high volume talk page.
 * 1) Removes a comment, changes mind (since it was pointing out inappropriate hostility) and collapses it calling it uncivil.
 * It's funny to have to defend a self-reverted edit. ChildofMidnight's assertion of what goes on in my mind notwithstanding, I was coming to realize that closing and archiving disruptive material, rather than deleting it, tends to calm things faster and preserves a better archive record.  The actual personal attack I deleted was brazen and was causing demonstrable disruption that eventually lead to an WP:AN/I report (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive520).  Soxwon had opened a topic by calling the Obama page editing "bullshit", "unwarranted", "favoritism", "wrong and irresponsible".  Brothejr had implied that Soxwon was a follower of World News Daily.  Soxwon complained that Brothejr was pigeonholing him, and Brothejr apologized.  That should have resolved this very minor flare-up.  But, a suspicious account that seems to exist only for insulting other editors, made an unprovoked and uncalled-for personal attack, calling Brothejr "nothing more than a sycophantic Obama ass-kisser."  I probably would have left that one alone but two other editors had already deleted this attack and Likwidshoe was edit warring to reinstate it.  I decided to collapse rather than delete it, in hopes that would settle the matter.  I believe that is a correct way to handle this.  ChildofMidnight's championing Likwidshoe over this incident and defending Likwidshoe's name-calling as "pointing out inappropriate hostility" after the matter was settled and apologized for suggests a problem with perceptions and priorities.
 * 1) Two edits later another dismissive and aggresive edit summary.
 * I fail to see how "Thanks for your comment - it has been assimilated" is aggressive. I was actually trying out a supportive approach to dealing with unhelpful comments as a way of calming editors incited by Aaron Klein's complaints.  The IP editor, in its only known edit, had added a short complaint beginning "this is a blatant whitewashed version of Mr. Obama" to the end of a closed discussion.  I politely acknowledged the post, and moved the archive end template from just above it to just below it.  Surely no new discussion was required on whether Wikipedia is a whitewash or not, particularly when there were many other threads simultaneously open at the time on this complaint.
 * 1) Snarky soapboxy lecture
 * Wow, ChildofMidnight is utterly misreading my tone. I was trying to be utterly straightforward and sincere.
 * 1) Very very very long soapbox unrelated to article . He reverted removal of it accusing me of disruption despite clear edit summary that it was wp:soap and is now claiming on this page that his comment was in some way helpful.
 * For ChildofMidnight to use his/her own deletion of my good faith comments here as purported evidence against me seems very misguided. Long responsive posts like mine on the talk page about the main article page are part of the talk page conversation.  I don't see how the WP:SOAP policy applies to that at all, but on an intuitive level, a long discussion of the article page becomes soapboxing only if it advances a personal opinion without trying to improve the article.  However, here I was responding in a conversational way to friendly questions and comments that were specifically directed to me.  Several other editors had made far-reaching observations on how we were managing the talk page and article in the wake of the Aaron Klein incident, and the discussion had turned towards the question of how relevant Obama's past association with unsavory individuals from Chicago was to his biography.  I took a step back to put these biographical details into the context of the article.  That response took me quite a while to write.  I was taken aback and quite puzzled when ChildofMidnight deleted my comment.  In light of ChildofMidnight's already long history of attacking me as a bad faith editor, this seemed like stalker-ish harassment in continuation of a grudge.  Rather than challenging ChildofMidnight on it and starting yet more Wikidrama, I simply reinstated my comment, noting the "weird disruption".  The more common "Don't you dare delete my comments, you troll" approach would have been a little incendiary so I kept it simple.  It was weird, and it was disruption - and both comments served a purpose: "weird" to indicate that I did not understand it and considered it inexplicable, and "disruption" to signal a special kind of reversion for process rather than content reasons.
 * 1) Apparently only Wikidemon gets to remove comments and only he's allowed to soapbox.
 * That is a logical fallacy, expressed (it seems) as gratuitous sarcasm. Many editors archive, move, close, and retitle comments on the Obama talk page to keep the page orderly, among other things to remove copyright violations, and calm free-for-all insult wars.  If you look at the talk page this past week, administrator User:Bigtimepeace has been doing the same.  In fact, a number of ChildofMidnight's own deletions of talk page comments were uncontested and uncontroversial.  However, per WP:TALK it is possible for talk page deletions to be improper.  Many other editors, not just me, have objected at times when ChildofMidnight has deleted good faith attempts at discussion calling them "grandstanding", "soapboxing", and similar accusations.
 * 1) Here's another long posting that disrupts a discussion of improvements needed in the article while W.D. launches into another lecture unrelated to article improvements..
 * Again, ChildofMidnight documents his/her own tendentious editing as a claim against me. The reason I made the post in the first place is that Scjessey had been inappropriately sarcastic and harsh with a newbie editor who had made a mildly inappropriate new post, and the editor was now inflamed.  ChildofMidnight was grandstanding by championing the problem editor, saying the editor was right to criticize the Obama article and its editors, and refusing to let other editors close the unproductive discussion that resulted.  In my judgment at the time, and now, the best thing to do was to calm everyone down, explain to the newbie exactly why there were rough waters on the talk page, close the discussion, and proceed elsewhere with any content proposals or behavioral complaints.  And the worst possible response was to whip up the flames by endorsing the new editor and showing him that getting into arguments and revert wars on the talk page is a legitimate response to the perceived Obama censorship cabal.  I would have made a friendly request to cut this out on ChildofMidnight's talk page, but ChildofMidnight had already reverted comments there as "trolling" and demanded to be addressed on the article talk page instead.  My second comment was addressed to administrator Mfield who, despite the best of intentions, was interrupting a talk page conversation to criticize the article patrollers.  Mfield, unfortunately, had put talk page management and managers at issue on the talk page, so I explained there in detail why we were firm with newbies who criticize other editors, and the background on why there is an everpresent concern over sockpuppetry.  Scjessey was wrong to be sarcastic, but dressing him down in front of an impressionable newbie (assuming good faith rather than sockpuppetry here, an open question) was not the way to go.  I restored my comments once because I was, again, taken aback by ChildofMidnight's seemingly unwarranted deletion of my comments - but when ChildofMidnight deleted them a second and third time I refused to join in, instead asking WP:AN/I for help.  As noted elsewhere, ChildofMidnight revert warred against three others on the Obama talk page to remove the discussion.


 * 1) Engages in endless ANI threads against me (collapsed at top of page).
 * 2) He refactors discussion
 * 3) ...and continues adding new threads even after no wrongdoing on my part is found.
 * 4) Uses provocative thread titles to smear me like "BLP" even though there has never been a serious allegation that I have engaged in any BLP violating edits.
 * 5) Seems to be trying to intimidate me with these reports
 * 6) and let's face it, several editors who didn't share his political viewpoints have recently been banned or blocked.

[need to rework below material]

Regarding other AN/I threads I certainly did not start them all. If anyone cares to review Childofmidnight's record in detail they will find frequent AN/I reports because he/she engaged often in blockable disruptive conduct, and got off only through some combination of mudslinging and blind luck. Each time I seem to be the diversionary scapegoat. Adding a section subheading to separate the portion of an AN/I thread dealing with ChildofMidnight's behavior from the inevitable accusations against me and others is, counter to ChildofMidnight's claim, helpful organization, not refactoring. Dealing with ChildofMidnight's frequent accusations of bad faith, false statements about edit histories, and demands that I be blocked or topic banned, made in article talk space and on meta-pages, has been an unwanted chore that sours me on participation in the project. It is also unpleasantly familiar. Attacking me at AN/I, then villifying me for participating there, was a favorite trick of and socks. When an editor who is the subject of a noticeboard case launches false accusations against other people on the notice board, as here, it diverts attention from the real issue and bogs the process down to the point of paralysis. Jumping in to make accusations tangential to a case, as ChildofMidnight has done many times, has a similar effect. ChildofMidnight's claim that this or any other AN/I case vindicated ChildofMidnight, or impugned me, is dubious at best.


 * I also don't get the "uses provocative thread titles to smear me like 'BLP'" reference - that seems to be a tit-for-tat counter-accusation picked up from this case. I'm normally very careful to use short, neutral section titles, but if there is a BLP concern on a talk page or warning note, I would normally use that abbreviation.  COM has certainly committed and then edit warred over some very serious BLP violations, for example this cascade of edit wars that got the Rashid Khalidi article indefinitely edit protected.  The BLP vio comes because the sources are partisans, editorials, and blogs, and the disparaging claims that Khalidi is a former PLO official material and printed "fabricated quotations" in his political writings is not faithful even to those sources.  Although the Khalidi page itself is not under article probation, this is an Obama-related issue because the currency of allegations against Khalidi is almost entirely a child of partisan tactics during the recent election cycle to draw connections between Obama and various individuals, while claiming those individuals were former terrorists.  Calling Khalidi a PLO official who lied about his past was a way of disparaging Obama as (to use Sarah Palin's words) "palling around with terrorists."

If anyone cares to review Childofmidnight's record in detail they will find frequent AN/I reports because he/she engaged often in blockable disruptive conduct, and got off only through some combination of mudslinging and blind luck. Each time I seem to be the diversionary scapegoat. Adding a section subheading to separate the portion of an AN/I thread dealing with ChildofMidnight's behavior from the inevitable accusations against me and others is, counter to ChildofMidnight's claim, helpful organization, not refactoring. Dealing with ChildofMidnight's frequent accusations of bad faith, false statements about edit histories, and demands that I be blocked or topic banned, made in article talk space and on meta-pages, has been an unwanted chore that sours me on participation in the project. It is also unpleasantly familiar. Attacking me at AN/I, then villifying me for participating there, was a favorite trick of and socks. When an editor who is the subject of a noticeboard case launches false accusations against other people on the notice board, as here, it diverts attention from the real issue and bogs the process down to the point of paralysis. Jumping in to make accusations tangential to a case, as ChildofMidnight has done many times, has a similar effect. ChildofMidnight's claim that this or any other AN/I case vindicated ChildofMidnight, or impugned me, is dubious at best.

Stevertigo's edit warring during pendency of case
Edit warring:
 * Policy list - edit warring this widely used template to add a link to WP:PROC, a proposal Stevertigo wrote (and self-cites in this case) to claim that "Processes are subordinate and deferential to our policies". If accepted the proposal would support his application of IAR to edit war the Obama articles and meta-pages in the name of NPOV.
 * Workpages (relates to the attempt to sandbox an Obama criticism article on the Obama talk page)
 * Criticism - Stevertigo edit warring to ad link to a proposal he drafted that (by presenting both sides equally) seems to justify criticism sections, attempted WP:3O fork. Sceptre also involved; dispute predates this case.
 * Subpages
 * WP:Content Forking (Sceptre and other editors edit war to the point of article protection)
 * Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view (Sceptre edit wars with another editor over closing a discussion about criticism sections; ends up creating RfC)
 * WP:AN/I Filed 3 AN/I reports in one day over same series of issues when there was already an active AN/I report on the general matter. Reverts attempt to consolidate two related AN/I reports, files a fork AN/I thread on the moving of the AN/I thread, undoes archiving/closure of the discussion four times apparently Five days later, files an AN/I report over an issue already raised in this case as the subject of a possible injunction, then changes the title of his AN/I report to be a personal attack and reverts a closure of the discussion.

Unopposed changes or BRD:
 * Deletion process - Stevertigo links to his new WP:PROC proposal that would put "process" under "policy".
 * Criticism sections (essay) (Sceptre adds Godwin quote, Stevertigo links to his new proposal and to a section he is edit warring)
 * Controversial articles - links to his new proposal, attempts to use this guideline to justify criticism sections (the guideline is in fact not about criticism)
 * WP:Summary style (seems to relate to splitting off criticism sections)
 * Stevertigo has created several new process-related essays, proposals, and templates, some that would favor his position in this case. New pages include article creation, processes, WP:Requesting dispute resolution, WP:Processes, WP:I just don't like it, Criticism sections and articles,