Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Proposal to conclude this arbitration by summary motion
1)


 * The excellence of Child of Midnight's overall conduct and the invaluable contributions he has made to Wikipedia being universally acknowledged.


 * It being noted that Child of Midnight has been found by this Committee to have behaved disruptively in the past, for which he was placed under sanctions, and further, that Child of Midnight was one month since found by a consensus of Wikipedians to be an active menace due to his obdurate behavior and bad faith accusations against his colleagues.


 * Child of Midnight's existing topic ban on Obama articles being acknowledged.


 * Child of Midnight's many unprovoked and unsupported attacks on other editors being a particular cause for concern.

Let it be recorded that


 * Child of Midnight's topic ban is reset and extended to twelve months from the time of this motion's official announcement on his talk page, and expanded to apply to all articles under community or arbitration sanction, with the responsibility for notification resting with the administrator applying sanctions.


 * Any administrator finding Child of Midnight to be engaging in personal attacks or serious and repeated failure, on notification, to assume good faith, may warn Child of Midnight. If the conduct continues, any three uninvolved administrators on mutual agreement may suspend this user's editing privileges for a period not exceeding seven days in the first offence, rising by increments to one month, and upon the fifth offence to a maximum of six months.


 * For the purposes of application this sanction, being attacked by Child of Midnight or accused by Child of Midnight of misconduct shall not alone constitute involvement. It is expected that administrators will behave with utmost responsibility towards Child of Midnight at all times, as befits the dignity of their role and privileges.


 * Child of Midnight is thanked for his contributions, including his criticisms of Wikipedia, and encouraged to cultivate the skills of diplomacy that will render this regrettable sanction unnecessary.


 * God Save the King!


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The spirit behind this proposal may be commendable, but the substance of the matter brought to evidence lies in ChildofMidnight's repeated offensiveness; making is considerably more difficult to prevent those occurences is likely to perpetuate &mdash; rather than alleviate &mdash; the problem. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Seriously, comrades, do we need a long and drawn out arbitration case for this? Use this as a template, fill in the blanks, and pass a motion pronto. --TS 03:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This says nothing about the glaring problem with his block log, nor does it caution admins to take more care - 21 block entries when there should've just been 8 (4 of which were before August 2009) exhausts any good faith an user might have in the wiki system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the block log, mainly because I'm unfamiliar with the details of this user's history but also because there was nothing in the evidence page to support the notion that there are any such problems. I withdraw my suggestion as I think the arbitrators should examine the block log to decided whether administrators behaved abusively in blocking. --TS 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well even then there's a problem. ArbCom has traditionally not considered how an user has developed a perception that admins are bad news because...[add reasons]. It might be that each admin happened to have their occasional mistake or lapse in judgement, but everything adds up for the user's block log. There might not actually be a concerted effort to go after an single user by the admin community, but actions by the admin community can contribute to an user developing that general view when there are problems on this scale. Because ArbCom only considers if an admin has abused their position or tools if there's a pattern or if it's extreme, the claims often end up being considered unjustified. Unfortunately, that equates to the users being punished as if they are responsible for the bad blocks, the extra entries, and the perceptions that came about because of the repeated problems, when in reality, it's the admins who should've taken extra care to avoid creating, or adding to that perception. The only remedy I can think of to address that underlying issue is to compel admins to take more care (and act in a manner that is more fitting for their position) so as to hopefully renew that user's faith - but that solution continues to be ignored, and the system keeps deteriorating where a faction of the community is unsatisfied with only ArbCom handling admins. FWIW, I liked most of this proposal, but having no remedy for the issue I'm raising will simply mean we get no where; though if ArbCom intends to ignore or overlook this issue (regardless), then I suppose enacting this proposal may very well save us all a lot of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly admins regularly make errors, sometimes bad ones, and certain admins make errors frequently. But beyond presenting evidence of specific mistakes made by admins when blocking ChildofMidnight (not simple, legitimate disagreement by admins as to whether a block was valid or not, which is the case for some of the blocks in the log), I don't know what you are looking for here. We cannot have a finding that "the admin community contributed to the problems with ChildofMidnight" because the vast majority of admins have had nothing to do with that editor, and a high percentage of those who have had interactions did nothing wrong. Also as I commented below in one of my proposed principles the problems with C of M&mdash;at least those that were severe enough to be fairly heavily sanctioned by ArbCom last June (which ChildofMidnight described as a "travesty" or something to that effect despite the fact that it was unanimous among the committee and C of M was not the only editor sanctioned)&mdash;predate all but one of the blocks. I'm all for a principle that admins should take more care when blocking or otherwise acting in an adminly fashion and cannot imagine that anyone would find that to be controversial. Beyond that I don't think there's much we can say generally about administrators in this case (or really any case&mdash;there are too many to speak in general terms), and if there are specific problems relating to blocks of ChildofMidnight then evidence needs to be presented about that or there really is not much to discuss. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hope that what would be gleaned from CoM's block log is that admins shouldn't be so hasty in undoing each other's blocks in the first place. One in particular ('s unblock) caused a particularly nasty shitstorm at the time, IIRC. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If so-called "legitimate disagreement" is occurring so frequently to the point that blocks on the one user are being reversed as they shouldn't have been imposed in that manner, (or if it's as Tarc suggests, blocks that shouldn't be reversed are being reversed repeatedly) on the same individual, something is seriously wrong. That the vast majority of admins have nothing to do with editors is more of an excuse than a justification for it, because it seems some admins just fail to appreciate the damage they are causing when they fail to take sufficient care - note, even if it's unintentional, admins are expected to take sufficient care. Principles are toothless on their own. The entire admin community needs to at least be reminded that in dealing with this editor, they need to have reasonably discussed the matter of taking that particular action on the user with their peers, and taken sufficient care to ensure that it's very unlikely that their action will need to be modified, even if it has constantly been unintentional - I thought we could agree to that as a preferrable course than bringing up specific names and following a tradition that (like some civility blocks and warnings) simply does not work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the proposed sanctions require three admins to act in consort to block the party involved. That seems to address at least part of your concern in this particular case.  The block log does include both bad blocks overturned and good blocks overturned, but by your count eight of them were legitimate.  An editor who accumulates eight legitimate blocks in less than a year is a problem editor. PhGustaf (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Block 1 = Edit war (24 hr). Block 2 = Incivility (24 hr). Block 3 = Arb topicban vio (24 hrs. Unblock 4 = Promise to avoid the articles that fell into the ban. Block 5 = Disruptive editing (12 or 24 hrs) Block 6 = Arb topicbanvio (Law unblock) Block 7 = DE: offensive language, assumption of bad faith, etc. (1 week) Unblock 8 = unblock was primarily due to consensus to unblock established at WP:ANI, unblocking to participate in ArbCom matter was secondary. That comes to 8 entries; 2 unblocks + 6 very short blocks. When it comes to the point of picking such needles out of the haystack (20+ entries) of things that shouldn't have happened, it becomes difficult to say that the editor alone caused the problem. The first half of the needles were easy to find at the bottom; finding the second (& more recent) half isn't. I'd have to double check some of these entries I've noted as there was little info in the block log. All that said, it's true; 3 admins making the judgement together might address part of the concern - though 5 may be more appropriate due to the level of contentious ness here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The notion of requiring three admins to discuss and agree on enforcement is an old one I cribbed from 2005-era arbitration rulings. Provided it was made plain that admin conduct must be of the highest in dealing with this editor, I think something of the sort might be useful in a remedy to this case. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

User conduct
1) Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to: project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions, see also similar (shorter) language at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf which would also probably work just fine. This covers all of the bases in terms of editor decorum which is the general issue at the heart of this case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
2) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions. Perceiving Wikipedia as a battleground is clearly a cause of some of the problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, though I think the proposals listed so far largely fail to account for the source of the problem - that is, why does ChildofMidnight perceive Wikipedia as a battleground, especially with respect to users in positions like...admin? I'm not sure how any user would be able to deny the problem of admins (as a group) repeatedly "making mistakes" or exercising poor judgement that requires extra needless discussion, drama and action to rectify the situation - here, it's caused ChildofMidnight to have 21 entries in his block log when there should've only been 8 entries (half of which were before August last year); that is a glaring problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One could debate how many of the blocks of ChildofMidnight were actually justified, however it's undeniably true that the block log is far longer than it should be in terms of entries because of blocks that were overturned, changed, etc. But even before the first block there were issues with ChildofMidnight's behavior, and the sanctions from ArbCom re: Obama articles came when C of M had only been blocked once, so I don't think it's correct to say that poor admin behavior is the "source of the problem" when it comes to ChildofMidnight and a battleground mentality&mdash;at least not the sole (or even primary) source of the problem. That said, I'm not at all adverse to principles about admin behavior, particularly if evidence is presented dealing with those concerns, that just was not my focus here. Finally, it's worth pointing out that two of the admins who blocked C of M have since been desysopped, so even if their blocks were among the bad ones (and I think they were) there is not a whole lot to be gained by reviewing them in detail, at least in terms of remedies for the (ex) admins. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is quite clearly a major source to at least part of the problem, even if it arguably isn't the only source or the only problem. On another note, it's not just ex-admin blocks that were reversed/modified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no question that ChildofMidnight's issues predate a sense that his block log was longer than it ought to be and thus the block log is unquestionably, i.e. rather than "arguably," not the only source or the only problem&mdash;the Obama ArbCom case established this quite clearly when there was only one block on his record which was not reversed. Also C of M (as evidence from the RfC and this case shows) has routinely railed against admins who have never blocked him, and indeed against admins who have done nothing but unblock him. To my mind mistakes by a few admins (and it's my opinion that there were at least a couple of blocks that were unjust) does not justify the adoption of a battleground mentality (though of course I understand why someone would be upset about it), nor the lashing out at any admin who says something one finds disagreeable. If we need to examine bad blocks by specific admins then let's do so, but that belongs in the evidence section, at least to begin with. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're really in a position to understand how it works or to even think of making a judgement of what justifies it because a/ you have conflict of interest as an admin and b/ you've only ever dished out blocks - you've never been on the receiving end, and merely imagining what it might be like doesn't cut it. A block log that is this long as a result of repeated admin mistakes/problems is not something many other admins could really imagine. In any event, this isn't a justification - it's a mitigating factor, unless of course you intend to argue that this is a commonplace problem that nearly every editor is suffering as a result of poor admin decisions, rather than one unique to this editor (for whatever reason). Double the entries (and we're talking 2 digit numbers) is far less than satisfactory, be it as a result of a few admins choices or more. It would be unjustifiable to make the editor responsible for admins not taking enough care, and so seeing it's unquestionably a source/problem, then recognising that seems to be in order, because little seems to have changed since the previous arbitration in that dept. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I cannot parse all of that, particularly in the last sentence, but my point above that the problems (severe ones) predate the block log still stands and you don't seem to take issue with that. Also you seem to agree, correct me if I'm wrong, that getting a raw deal a few times with respect to blocks does not justify the kind of behavior ChildofMidnight has engaged in (please understand that addressing that behavior is my interest in participating in this, though of course if you have other concerns that's quite alright, I just might not be overly concerned with them). I'm not sure how being an admin (incidentally one who has probably issued all of two or three blocks in total against regular contributors) puts me in a conflict of interest with respect to understanding how blocks work, or how never being blocked (which is, of course, a good thing!) makes me less able to make judgments about blocks then someone who has received blocks (neither is a neutral, objective position). But this is all somewhat beside the point to my mind and we seem to have gotten a bit far afield from discussing the basic "battleground" principle proposed here, so I'm not sure it's worthwhile to continue this chat, and I'm fine with a clerk moving this to the talk page if that's more appropriate (if it's better here then so be it). I would suggest you add evidence and or workshop proposals to address the points you are bringing up, some of which I'm admittedly having difficulty grasping when they are discussed in more abstract terms as above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocks may technically exist to temporarily suspend editing privilleges, but in reality, they cause a lot more harm, and it's rather sad that there's a constant tradition whether either admins like yourself, or members of ArbComs totally fail to comprehend the extent of that harm for some reason - either you choose to ignore it, or are genuninely unable to understand it. I believe it's the latter because you've never received a block, a bad block at that, so you are unable to imagine what a blocked user actually experiences, and therefore support the only position you can relate to - that of the admin who blocks/unblocks rather than that of the blocked/unblocked editor. Reputation wise, it's a good thing not to be blocked - experience wise, not being blocked isn't really an asset. Acting in a manner that can make an user feel that (further) injustices are being perpetrated against them, even if it's unintentionally, is not something I would be proud of, where the accumulation of problems suggests that the user is not overreacting or irrational to feel so. I think a record of this discussion is better here as it goes back to why ideals, such as the content in this principle, do not always work in practice. If Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy as the same page seems to make out, dispute resolution needs to cater for the type of circumstances that arise in cases like this - a black and white principle of Wikipedia is not a battleground is of little use on its own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your view of blocks as more harmful than some folks comprehend and in general not desirable (of course that does not mean we never use them, and I'm quite confident you are not saying that), which is why I hand them out very, very rarely (98% of those I've done&mdash;apparently a bit over 70 over the course of 22 months&mdash;were for simple vandalism and the like, which surely you agree is necessary from time to time in order to stop defacement of articles). Rather than assume you know what I think simply because I am an administrator, you could maybe have just asked me what my position was. I would not be proud of ascribing certain views/levels of "comprehension" to others simply because they fall into one particular user category&mdash;ironically that's exactly the kind of thing that has proved problematic for ChildofMidnight. And I would (again) suggest you add evidence and/or workshop proposals to address the points you are bringing up. If you want ArbCom to look at the issues you are alluding to, you are going to have to provide something much more specific than the vague points raised above, and if they do not take action based on this side-discussion it does not mean that they have chosen to "ignore/overlook/manipulate," it might just mean that, like me, they don't understand exactly what your issue is or, more importantly, what you are proposing be done about it in the context of this specific (and seemingly rather narrow in scope) ArbCom case. Regardless of whether you pursue your concerns further, this discussion between us is clearly not going to yield anything fruitful so I'll be bowing out now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I think the idea behind this proposal is that a battleground mentality has entered the relevance of this case. As written it does not say "CoM has a battleground mentality", though as CoM is the focus of the case I understand why one would look ahead and make that conclusion. The discussion of wether CoM has a battleground mentality and if such a mentality was the result of alleged admin mistakes or harrasment is a better discussion for FoF's. Perhaps another Principle describing the negative effects that improper admin actions can have on an editor is something you might want to propose. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Casting aspersions
3) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. Perhaps the single most important principle for this case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I wish a query such as show all edits by ChildofMidnight where "Tarc" and "harass" are present was possible here, to show just how often I get name-dropped by this user. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer Ryan Postlethwaite's version, below. in an attempt to besmirch their reputation sounds a bit too sinister. The word "egregious" isn't relevant to the point. I prefer the way Ryan elaborates a bit about the importance of evidence. Style point: The final word or phrase is the most emphasized part of a passage. This one would best end with "evidence". The words "if at all" make a point that I don't think is worth trying to make here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Vested contributors
4) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content. All editors should work within Wikipedia's collaborative consensus environment and if a dispute arises, avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and recognize that Wikipedia is a communal endeavor, with communal routes to dispute resolution.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions. Obviously germane to this case given ChildofMidnight's good content contributions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair criticism
5) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions. Important point since we need to say that criticism is not at all unwelcome, rather it still needs to be expressed in a civil fashion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Harassment
6) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. Basic definition setting up proposed principle number 8 "Dealing with harassment." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hounding
7) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. Again a basic definition, with the third paragraph's discussion of assuming good faith being particularly relevant to this case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with harassment
8) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. As with expressing criticism, there are right ways and wrong ways for dealing with perceived harassment. "Fighting back and attacking" is very much the wrong way, while calmly seeking out administrative assistance is the appropriate response which has all too often not been in evidence when ChildofMidnight has felt harassed (the question of whether or not those feelings have been legitimate can be left to the side here since this is a general principle). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially a shorter version of this proposal above, and I'm fine with either of these or something else with similar language. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BigtimePeace's language begins a sentence with the phrase "Even in difficult situations," instead of burying it in the middle of a sentence. That may seem like a minor detail, but it really isn't. It's a point that should be emphasized, because CoM's repeated response to authority is "well, what about them". There's also the problem in both BTP's language and this one that Wikipedia doesn't really (in practice) expect editors to always be calm and courteous. That's why Ryan Postlethwaite's suggestion to lift CoM's last block easily passed. Unseemly conduct is only prohibited in policy, not in practice. Continued unseemly conduct is what's prohibited in practice. Usually. Also, BTP's that all editors should adhere to makes the point that this is the ideal. The phrase with a constructive and collaborative outlook is key. I'm certain that CoM always means to be "constructive" in the sense of righting a wrong. I think "collaborative outlook" is deficient, as shown by the evidence -- although he's generally lacking that when so many others around him are lacking it -- therefore the need to emphasize "Even in difficult situations". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption
2) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is an important point for this case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very helpful point. I should have read this before commenting on the one just above. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Personalising disputes
3) When disputes arise, editors should endeavour to restrict debate to the issue in dispute and avoid personalising the dispute, ascribing motives or pursuing disputants into other content areas.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm sure this has been said more eloquently in some previous case but it seems to me to be a fundamental part of the problem per the evidence offered. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Important point, well put. I'd replace "endeavour" with something like "constantly try" or "attempt". It's an gritty challenge and the language should be in plain fatigues, not dress uniform. (And since our subject here is American, in Americanized spelling. ;)) Just noticed the last part: I wasn't aware that CoM had pursued anyone into another content area. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is worth highlighting; there were times when CoM wasn't justified in some comments. However, there were also times that CoM was justified, but no proposals have been made to the effect that; if an editor has a negative perception about an user or group of users, and that user or group of users believes that the perception is incorrect, it is important that such users especially take care so as to avoid acting in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as furthering that perception. Convoluted way of putting it, I know, but it should make sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, my intent was very much that it should work both ways. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ChildOfMidnight restricted
1) For a period of one year, ChildOfMidnight is prohibited from commenting on the conduct of any other user, other than by direct request to the Arbitration Committee. This specifically includes ascribing motives in a content dispute or other debate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It's a nice concept, but I fear very much unlikely to work in practice because it has too many gray areas where the nature of a comment can be disputed. Besides, I don't think the problem with ChildofMidnight is what criticism he may have, but the manner of that criticism.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I wonder if this would work? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This does get right to the heart of the matter, but I wonder how it would work in practice. Obviously we would not want it to prohibit a comment like "Great job with that DYK!" (which technically it would as currently worded), while on the other hand we would not want it to enable/allow some of the general comments that don't name particular editors ("Wikipedia is controlled by packs of POV pushers...") which have been prevalent in the past. It's worth thinking about something like this though, perhaps reworked somewhat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The more we have restrictions that depend on someone interpreting the type of comment being made, we'll have multiple interpretations on whether a specific comment was over the line or not -- from CoM, the administrator who made the determination, from CoM's enemies, from other parties. So I think this is likely to raise tempers and probably wouldn't work. I expect everyone to test the limits on everything, so simpler solutions would be better: blocks, prohibitions on commenting on certain pages, etc. For areas of concern still not covered, the "screener" proposed by Durova might be helpful if he'll cooperate. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting to the right idea, though I do agree with Coren about the problems of its out-working. Something to stop his constant cries of abuse is clearly necessary, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2) For a period of one year, ChildOfMidnight is prohibited from joining any new dispute other than content disputes where ChildOfMidnight has made significant contributions to the article at issue or another closely related article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I wonder if this would work? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The ideas are valuable in my opinion, but I don't think they are workable in this particular form. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, and this is a workshop so hopefully someone will come up with a better way of achieving this. I do think, though, that this and the above are the crux of the matter. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Decorum
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption
2) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Request for comment/User conduct
3) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC. RfCs should not be used abusively, nor should the concerns raised in an RfC be ignored.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Casting aspersions
4) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Very important point. I don't know if it would be appropriate in this spot to mention that it's specifically against WP:NPA to make unsupported accusations. This might be shortened a bit by replacing the first words with "Editors must not ..." because it's probably not a good idea to dwell on what is or isn't "acceptable" or "routine". In the last sentence, you don't need the words "consistent", "objectively" (all real support is objective) or "subjective" (all belief is subjective, unless its supported, and then becomes "knowledge"). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Conduct on arbitration pages
6) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I suppose this may be necessary given recent edits to this page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No point raising this as a result of a single incident caused by impulse, especially seeing CoM was informed, warned, and has successfully avoided the conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight
1) has been a member of the project since November 2008. In his time here, he has made over 40,000 edits. He has created a substantial of number of new articles, many of which have appeared on the "Did you know?" section of the main page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. It's very important to acknowledge the many good contributions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous arbitration findings
2) ChildofMidnight has previously been sanction by the Arbitration Committee in Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. He was found to have deleted and/or refactored comments of others on article talk pages, engaged in edit warring and created the appearance of templating other parties to the case. He was topic banned from Obama-related articles for 6 months and admonished and restricted to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles for 1 year due to edit warring.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support as basic background. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight request for comment
3) In December 2009, ChildofMidnight was subject to a request for comment (See Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight). The request for comment was certified by three editors and endorsed by an unusually large number of others. The request for comment focused on incivility from ChildofMidnight which is evidenced at Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight and Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. closed the discussion in January 2010 stating that consensus was that ChildofMidnight should "tone things down", should consider taking a "self-imposed vacation of a few months from posting to any policy talk page or any administrative noticeboards" and it is "strongly suggested that [he] carefully review these conclusions and use the information here to modify [his] actions onwiki in such a way as to make [his] interactions with other editors more harmonious and productive."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support as basic background. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to request for comment by ChildofMidnight
4) ChildofMidnight responded to his request for comment by calling participants "abusive trolls, drama mongers, and stalking harassers". He called for 7 editors (many of whom were participants to the request for comment) to be banned . His official reponse on the request for comment was one that suggested the problems were everyone else's but his own. He labeled the close a "very poor showing. Incompetent, unconstructive, biased and unhelpful" and then went on to label his request for comment as "that RfC bullshit".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support as basic background. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Except for the last sentence, this Fof is inaccurate; my understanding is that Tarc was not merely a participant, and given that CoM's official response says "I have read the comments offered here and I will take them into consideration going forward", the summary of his response is inaccurate too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there is an error, he did not call for 7 "participants" to be banned, rather 7 editors (including 4 or 5 participants). Actually seven editors by name, he alluded to others, but no matter. The proposed finding does not say that Tarc was "merely a participant," it says he was a participant, which he absolutely was (I'm not sure what you mean by "merely" in any case). And describing C of M's response to the RfC as "one that suggested the problems were everyone elses but his own" is quite accurate in my view, the last sentence notwithstanding (you need to read the entirety of the comment wherein C of M complains about a lot of others but does not suggest there is anything he needs to change at all). Once the word "participants" is changed to "other editors" I think this FoF is perfectly fine. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion though, your version of accurate represents selective reading. RfC/U is not used as a means of making others grovel, and it appears that some of the participants (like yourself) believe otherwise. He's entitled to raise his concerns about other editors involved if he wishes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course he is entitled to do that, but if he so chooses, while suggesting he has done nothing wrong, it should not be surprising that his response would later be summarized as "suggest[ing] the problems were everyone elses but his own." Again, read the reply&mdash;that's precisely what he said, is it not? This all has nothing to do with making anyone grovel (who on earth said that?), and once again you are doing something that I find incredibly annoying, i.e. claiming to know what I think. Clearly you don't, so I'd ask you to kindly stop ascribing beliefs to me, particularly negative ones like "you think RfC is a place to make people grovel" (a paraphrase of course but that's the gist). Communication is a bit easier Ncmvocalist when you deal with what people actually say, rather than whatever "belief" you make up for them in your own head. At this point I'm going to disengage from this back and forth between the two of us altogether. Obviously our recent spat is crossing over into this case and that's not good for the process, plus frankly talking with you is not something I feel like doing anymore. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bigtimepeace, the only user unreasonably raising any spat is you, and I think it behoves you to repeatedly make baseless accusations that ironically are the type of conduct that are at the heart of this case. Firstly, you've accused me of being pointy below and failed to even come close to substantiating, let alone explaining this point - I would've been fine if you merely qualified it, but it seems excuses are all that you are left with. Secondly, ChildofMidnight's lack of grovelling or explicit acknowledgement does not constitute a suggestion that he was right or wrong; it merely means he has deep concerns about the relevant editors. The last sentence is satisfactory to suggest that he has read the concerns and intends on bearing them in mind; there's no point expecting more detail where it's unrequired - that he didn't bear all of it in mind, to the particular extent desired by many users including myself, does not justify misrepresenting what is written in plain English: "I have read the comments offered here and I will take them into consideration going forward". So I suggest you strongly make an effort to follow your own advice about reading what people actually say, and make a greater effort to follow your own advice about easy communication before wasting time and space in needlessly lecturing others. Finally, unlike you, I don't communicate with you because "I feel like it"; I only communicate where I think it might be necessary. In such circumstances, disengaging is a good idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to 7 editors.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious Support - This is a simple, basic recounting of how ChildofMidnight participated in his RfC/U, there is nothing at all to quibble over. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Post request for comment conduct by ChildofMidnight
5) Since his request for comment, ChildofMidnight has continued to show conduct that is uncivil towards other editors (See Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support per the clear evidence, if more is added it should be linked to as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Conduct in climate change related articles
6) ChildofMidnight has made a number of problematic talk page comments in the climate change topic area (See Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence). Due to this conduct, he has received a number of warnings (See Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support, once it's corrected, the last part is inaccurate since C of M was not placed on probation, rather this message from an admin merely pointed out to him that climate change articles are on probation, which is a routine warning one would give to editors just to make them aware of the situation. Also I feel it's important to note that ChildofMidnight is far from being the only problematic editor on climate change articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies - corrected now.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of Ryan Postlethwaite's evidence about COM on the Climate change articles is incredibly weak. I don't see where that evidence supports any finding. CoM's block in January [] for edits at the Lawrence Solomon talk page see here and look at the discussion up to that point seem to be the worst of it -- and Kim Petersen's and William Connolley's behavior was clearly provocative. CoM's comments further lowered the civility level (and are a perfect example of why CoM should be avoiding the typical rough-and-tumble of political hot topics), but the provocation should be considered. Everything else is either not on the Climate Change pages or is hardly problematic, even under general sanctions. (My mistake. That's not part of Ryan's evidence. I got lost in following the diffs, which my computer is having trouble downloading tonight. Sorry.) If this is the worst behavior by CoM on those pages, drop the whole idea of addressing it because his behavior elsewhere is much worse. I suppose I should go into detail on the evidence talk page about why RP's Climate-change-related evidence is so weak. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the absence of looking at the wider problem of problematic conduct in the whole global warming area, this really should not have been brought up; insufficient evidence. I also think many of these proposed findings are incomplete. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How are they incomplete? You're free to create your own suggestions if you feel they're lacking somehow.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's enough time, I just might. It'd obviously be easier to follow up on arb proposals though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight's conduct during arbitration
ChildofMidnight has continued to be uncivil on pages related to this arbitration case. He has refactored another editor's proposals, labeled other editors comments as slander and represented the good faith actions of others as "hounding, harassing, intimidating and abusing processes" and calling them "blatant lies".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Relevant as it shows ChildofMidnight is unwilling to change his attitude towards others even under whilst under investigation by the Arbitration Committee.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'd like to see how CoM responds to my post on the user talk - if CoM responds negatively, I'd agree that it's relevant. Otherwise this is insufficient, and it may be time to drop the axe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is becoming the heart of the matter, though; in any of the Wikipedia's steps of dispute resolution, think of the one thing that you would never want to see a party do in that situation, that would make people facepalm and say "did he/she really just do that?" ChildofMidnight, against all odds, stunningly manages to find and do that one thing, whether it is attacking the filer, the participants, and the closer of an RfC/U or to cry "slander!", refactor other's ArbCom comments, and run to AN and then Jimbo's page. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

ChildofMidnight banned
1) ChildofMidnight is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * With the current evidence, it does seem as though this is the most likely remedy to be supported by the committee as a whole; given ChildofMidnight's reluctance to understand lesser topical bans, I'd be hard pressed to find a workable lesser remedy. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I believe this is the most appropriate sanction given the evidence. Should the arbitrators not wish to pursue a full ban, I proposed the other sanctions below.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. I do not think we are at all at this point yet, and I do not think this is a desirable remedy given ChildofMidnight's good contributions. Beyond the Obama topic ban and several interaction bans between ChildofMidnight and other editors, nothing systematic has been attempted to address the behavioral problems, and indeed the RfC was only concluded a little over a month ago which is what established consensus that there was a serious problem here. I think we need to attempt less harsh (and perhaps more creative) remedies first before moving into a ban. Eventually I plan to offer some general and more lengthy thoughts about remedies on the workshop talk page and probably offer one or two as well in my "proposal" section above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As of this point, there is no evidence that CoM intends to behave in the future. If CoM refuses to recognize that he needs to work with others without these kinds of extreme incivility and personal attacks, then one year is too short. The block should be indefinite unless there are actual prospects of reform. He can always be unblocked later by ArbCom if he agrees to improve his conduct to address specific, identified problem areas. If he does agree to this, then a year is too long. I think that even if he agrees, a long block would reinforce the message and make it more likely he won't backslide. He needs to know ArbCom is serious. I'd say at least a month and at most 6 months. I say this with a lot of regret, because in many ways he's a great editor, but so far he's not taking this seriously. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - While I admire BTP's looking for the good within a bad situation...especially so given the incredible vitriol that ChildofMidnighthas flung his way over the last ~6 months or so...I think we're beyond the point where he can be redeemed. I really thought the RfC might at least give CoM some pause to consider that maybe, just maybe, such a wide array of people saying the same thing just may be on to something. Tarc (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of understanding a lesser remedy; it's a matter of willingness on the part of CoM, and a matter of admins getting it right when enforcing (6 out of 21 is unsatisfactory). The only workable lesser remedy is a civility mentorship (if CoM is willing), as well as one that doesn't rely on any single admin's judgement - there needs to be a diverse set of views on civility in the true sense so that these unfortunate perceptions about admins (or even ArbCom) do not continue, and that may mean selecting which admins are mentoring and enforcing. In the absence of enacting such a remedy, which would no doubt carry some complexity, this is unfortunately the only proposal I'm inclined to support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I just cannot support banning someone who has been nice to me, i.e. per the Golden Rule. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - CoM contributes much of value to the project. I think lesser measures should be employed to deal with the aspects of his behavior that are problematic without losing the vast amount of article creation work he does. Lady  of  Shalott  02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I was on the edge, but this edit convinced me that CoM has not learned one thing about reasonable conduct on Wikipedia and will never ever be collaborative or coöperative. The first Arbcom decision condemned CoM for molesting others' talk page contributions, and CoM is right back at it. PhGustaf (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame, and a net loss for the project, to loose a valuable contributor by going to this without trying one or more of the alternatives proposed by Durova or others below to at least see if they will work. Jonathunder (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose net loss to the community and a triumph to the people who have harassed CoM.--Caspian blue 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- there has to be some other way to get the point across to him that there are severe problems with his dispute style. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the committee should really consider trying to work with the alternative proposals in the hopes of keeping a content contributor. If these methods fail, the committee retains the option to ban by motion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight banned from climate change topic
2) ChildofMidnight is topic-banned from climate change-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment. I'm just not sure that this will do much, though it could be worth a shot (also I am concerned about ArbCom sanctioning one editor who has had some problematic patterns on the climate change articles when there are clearly other editors with issues there as well). The Obama topic ban probably lessened some of the problems, but it also led to seemingly endless debates about what was "Obama related" or not and some of the blocks and unblocks stemmed directly from confusion over this. Oftentimes topic bans can be effective remedies, but ChildofMidnight's problems seem to transfer smoothly from one topic to another, and indeed often are not topic related per say but rather relate to his views on other editors. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not let the general sanctions regime that's now there handle CoM's behavior if he goes back there? What's there now is sufficient. If blocked for a while, then it might be prudent for him to avoid any politics-related articles for months. I wouldn't limit a restriction to just climate change, because what's likely to set him off, in terms of content disputes, is politics in general. A ban on political articles and commenting on disputes that don't directly involve him might be good bans for some months after he returns. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose any sanctions with respect to this area, in the absence of considering all conduct in the area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This ArbCom case is supposed to not cover anything concerning the climate matter. It is a big mistake that the arbitraters turned down to accept the big mess case, and blame CoM for him voicing his thought against the obvious wrongness done by the people involved.--Caspian blue 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight editing restriction
3) ChildofMidnight is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose as probably not workable. Obviously I see the thinking here, but again (as with the suggestion of a topic ban) I'm not sure that limiting ChildofMidnight from certain types of interactions or parts of the encyclopedia is going to work. Just as or more importantly, it's very hard to determine what "dispute" means and what "not an originating party" means. Read broadly, it would mean ChildofMidnight could not show up at an article he has regularly edited for a year and discuss a heated issue on an article talk page which someone else brought up, even if he did so in a civil and constructive fashion. There is also the undeniable fact that ChildofMidnight has commented constructively in disputes in which he was not involved on a number of occasions, and I think what we want is more of that and none of the unconstructive stuff, rather than essentially muzzling him at the outset from any interaction with others over contentious matters. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * it would mean ChildofMidnight could not show up at an article he has regularly edited for a year and discuss a heated issue on an article talk page which someone else brought up, For maybe six months, that would be a good idea. And afterward, he's going to have to discuss matters within Wikipedia norms (and better than Wikipedia norms, because we often tolerate incivility). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's commented well on plenty of disputes that don't involve him, but he's commented disastrously in others. Avoiding situations where he's too tempted to fly off the handle is the best way to help him. I'd ban him from AN/I and A/N and commenting at arbitration pages, and any other behavior-related noticeboards, but then allow him to contact an administrator who might either deal with a problem or forward (civil, NPA) messages from him. I think he might comment on content disputes on talk pages without incivility or personal attacks -- perhaps some kind of civility probation would help, but I don't know how these things have worked with others in the past. A months-long ban from the drama boards, in any event, would be very useful. The rest becomes problematic, but if he's staying away from politics articles (and politics-related XfDs) and perhaps Wikipedia policy controversies, the opportunities for conflicts are enormously reduced. He seems to work very well with others in every other area, as far as I know. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments below & above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

3.1) ChildofMidnight is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 *  Basically support. I'm going to propose a slight expansion of this based on a past remedy and a suggestion at a WP:AN thread awhile ago, but I think this sort of remedy is the best option, even though I know "civility parole" clearly has its own problems. Rather than restricting where ChildofMidnight can go and comment, it puts the restriction at any sort of uncivil comment wherever it is said, and basically allows admins to block a bit more readily then would normally be the case. This has not been tried as yet, and I do think there is a chance that it could cause ChildofMidnight to dial back the rhetoric and personal attacks, simply because he does not want to be blocked and does want to be able to contribute. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Actually the more I think about this is basically fine so consider me a supporter. I do think it needs a time limit and to me a year makes sense, so the existing language should be preceded by the sentence "ChildofMidnight is subject to an editing restriction for one year." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would some kind of "civility mentor" -- an admin -- be a better option or a complementary feature? There are admins I think he gets along with well enough who might advise him when he thinks he might be stepping over the line. There are admins he's accused of treating him and others with double standards, and the existence of a mentoring admin might -- maybe, in some situations -- keep CoM and itchy-trigger-fingered admins on their best behavior. That might complement a civility restriction. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually just mentioned a similar idea on the talk page, and could imagine something like that being useful, though I don't know what the track record on that is like. Also ChildofMidnight would have to be cooperative, and at some point it's really going to be in his interest to participate in the case here if he wants to avoid a long block&mdash;the lesser remedies of civility restrictions and the like require at least some tacit acceptance of this process on his part. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed off the time limit - corrected now with your wording.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight would have to be cooperative So true. There's no evidence of that so far. If we have no reason to believe he'll be cooperative -- with anything -- what's the point of a time limit on the block? But I'm straying from the topic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Giving individual admins more opportunities to screw up their actions (be it blocks, lack of notifications, lack of warnings, etc.) is not something that will help any individual, or the project - the trainwreck block log needs to stop if we want to move forward, and that means civility parole is impossible. The civility mentor idea is worth considering though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This opposition genuinely confuses me given what you said here. You said you would be "inclined to support" a year long block, but for this remedy, given your fear that admins would sully C of M's block log unjustifiably yet again, you cannot support something akin to civility parole? Or, put another way, the risk of a bad block being made under civility parole is so great, that perhaps our only option is to block ChildofMidnight right now for one year? Seems a bit incomprehensible and almost a bit pointy to me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the diff indicates, I qualified my inclination of support with "In the absence of enacting such a remedy" - did you notice? Reading that and my above comment together would suggest that the essential point that makes me oppose this proposal is that civility parole isn't going to work in this case, and it's doubly not going to work in this case when we're left with judgements of single admins (which open more opportunities as I said above). If an appropriate civility mentorship and accompanying sanction cannot work, then a ban is certainly preferrable to the likelihood of continued problems for all (including CoM). Meanwhile, care to explain how that opinion is "a bit pointy" to you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't resolve the dilemma that immediately preceded this arbitration case. CoM made a comment that was not very nice but which the community decided was sub-blockable.  It took  75 KB of ANI discussion to reach that conclusion (and may have run longer if RFAR hadn't been filed).  In practice, probably wouldn't resolve anything.  Durova 412 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think these work too well in general, and in this case, where debates about whether the user in question's latest edit is blockable seem to rage, it looks like a recipe for trouble. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should ChildofMidnight violate an editing restriction, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose per my comments above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Screened editing
1) ChildofMidnight is placed under a screened editing restriction in the Wikipedia namespace and Wikipedia talk namespace. ChildofMidnight may not post directly to these pages.  This is functionally equivalent to a namespace ban with one important distinction: if ChildofMidnight obtains a willing and experienced editor acceptable to the Committee, that person can be designated as screener and proxy.  ChildofMidnight may submit proposed posts to the screener via email or equivalent discreet means, and the screener may post on ChildofMidnight's behalf.  A clear notation proxied for ChildofMidnight will accompany each proxied post.  The screener's function is to make sure that the only posts which go live are consistent with normal conduct standards.  The screener may manage submissions as he or she sees fit (rejecting proposals, requiring rewrites, imposing quotas, etc.).  If problems arise with screening, any uninvolved administrator may terminate the screening arrangement at arbitration enforcement.

Exemptions to the screened editing restriction are pages directly related to Template:Did you know, Good articles, and Featured content (nominations and reviews are allowable, as well as their respective talk pages). ChildofMidnight may post directly to these areas without restriction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * That's an interesting idea, and one with merit (I have considered something similar in a past case, as I am certain you recall) but leaves two open questions: what happens with side swipes in edit summaries and outside project space? The latter might be constrained by applying the remedy to "outside mainspace", but I see no provision for the former.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Intended as an alternative to sitebanning.  Durova 412 07:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems better, though I'm confused by the "if problems arise with screening" clause - I'm not comfortable with it at all. I also think a few experienced editors would be better than the one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "if problems arise" is a mechanism for the community to return this to a topic ban if disruption occurs. Best to keep this simple with AE and a single screener.  Let's be candid--this is designed to be the mildest feasible remedy.  Durova 412 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread on User:Lady of Shalot's talk page shows what kind of discussions the "screener" editor will likely have with CoM, at least at first. This thread on CoM's talk page (both links are permanent and those threads may not have concluded) also indicates the likely tenor of these kinds of discussions. Anyone volunteering for this kind of labor is going to have to ask themselves: "Am I going to go through all this and then watch CoM self-destruct in days or weeks or months because his attitude has not fundamentally changed?" If someone can be found who's willing to take the risk, that person should demand a clear commitment from CoM to avoid violating policies, guidelines and any restrictions placed on him, and to try to be reasonable, to work within the system, collaboratively, and to keep his temper. If this saint can be found to work with CoM, it's ArbCom's responsibility not to suggest this or allow it unless there's some reason to think CoM would cooperate with it and not waste the screener's time. After all, there aren't all that many saints available to Wikipedia and we certainly need to avoid souring them on the project, even more than good content editors. So, unless ArbCom can see some evidence of a commitment to good behavior on CoM's part, don't set this up. His good attitude, measured by his actions and statements over the time of this case, needs to be a necessary precondition, or this won't be worth doing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (after edit conflict with John Barber). I think we talked about this in the RfC, and I could definitely see it being helpful, but I'm not sure it goes far enough. There was a feeling in the RfC (and even prior to that discussion) that if ChildofMidnight just stayed away from noticeboards and the like things would be fine. But the evidence posted in this case shows that many of the most problematic comments happen on user talk pages, including ChildofMidnight's own talk page, and also on article talk pages. If this restriction were enacted, it would not prevent ChildofMidnight from reading an ANI discussion, going over to another editor's talk page, and saying "I see you are up to your old POV-pushing, admin abuse ways. Please knock it off and wise up" (obviously this is similar to many past comments). Given precedent I think we could pretty much guarantee that would happen and clearly that is not acceptable. I don't think the solution to the problem is to prevent ChildofMidnight from commenting in certain parts of project space, or in certain topic areas, and it's not realistic to extend Durova's proposed "screened editing" to basically the entire project (which is practically what would be required to my mind). Experience has shown that C of M can (and will) launch into personal attacks from his own talk page, and there is nothing okay about that. To my mind this is why something akin to civility parole makes more sense (see also my comment here, the second comment in the diff) as it allows us to react swiftly to any sort of problematic comment anywhere by C of M and gives the clear message that user talk and article talk pages are no more appropriate places for casting aspersions than ANI. I could see screened editing in project space being an additional measure if people think it would be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Coren: the WP namespace edits get proxied by the screener so there wouldn't be any chance for the edit summaries to get misused there. To deal with other namespaces it could be possible to implement this solution in tandem with another structured remedy.  One successful model that might work with adaptation was the editing restriction that was used here.  That covered another editor who seemed to be headed toward a siteban but who turned around and has nearly 60,000 edits now and hasn't been blocked since 2008.  Both CoM and that other editor do a lot of good work in mainspace but have/had short fuses.  Durova 412 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This indeed sounds like a good idea, and a sensible option. The key would be finding the right individual(s) for the task described, and nailing it down as far as procedure in such a way that the Arbitration Committee is comfortable with this process going forward. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably the most workable plan thus far, even if it does need some tweaking. I really think this sort of thing is where we should look. Of course, the committee retains the option to implement stronger measures via motion even if this is enacted and fails. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk restriction
2) ChildofMidnight is restricted from posting to user talk pages. The restriction shall function as follows: editors who welcome posts from ChildofMidnight may sign up at a list.  ChildofMidnight may post freely to those people's user talk pages.  Editors may withdraw from the list by striking their signatures, and additional editors may join the list at any time.  ChildofMidnight may not post directly to any other user talk pages except his or her own.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Might need modification, but provides a basic structure.  Durova 412 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this would help address much of the concern I expressed above if paired with the restriction from Wiki project space. Obviously both of these remedies are dependent on: 1) A certain level of cooperation from ChildofMidnight; 2) An admin (or I would think admins) willing to serve as an intermediary, which could require a good amount of work. With the talk page restriction we might also want a way for ChildofMidnight to reach out to editors with whom he wants to communicate and say "I'm under this restriction, would you be willing to sign up on this list?" While doing article work C of M might want to communicate with an editor who worked on something in the past, and a user talk page post could be the only way to do that, so there should be a little leeway there. The drawback is that the remedy (or remedies) starts to get a bit too complicated at some point. I think I still prefer Ryan's 3.1 remedy as being simple, all-inclusive, and easy to implement without a lot of work on the side. However I know there are issues with "civility parole" remedies and their effectiveness. Durova, since you're definitely more experienced in thinking about ArbCom remedies than I, I'm wondering if you might elaborate on why you think this "screened editing" might be more effective given what we've learned from past cases and their aftermath? I'm definitely open to being convinced and overall am interested in enacting whatever most people think will work. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea about a boilerplate may I post to your talk page query. That sounds workable.  Regarding the rest, let's discuss on workshop talk?  It's nearing the end of my evening so perhaps tomorrow.  Durova 412 05:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: A most interesting and workable remedy, as proposed above. This type of "opt in" methodology allows for user-talk communication between parties that are interested in doing so, while at the same time mitigating against unfortunate but possible negative outcomes from unwanted communications. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
1) Per JzG


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption
2) Per JzG


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Personalising disputes
3) Per JzG


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding to concerns
4) Although users may find concerns raised about their judgement or conduct to be unjustified, it is important for such users to especially avoid acting in a manner that could reasonably be seen as furthering those concerns. This standard applies at a higher level for users with extra privilleges, such as administrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Common sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment/User conduct
5) Per Ryan Postlethwaite


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: seeking advice on admin actions
6) It is especially important for administrators to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions. Administrators should not hesitate to draw on the experience or assistance of others whenever necessary. Seeking advice on an administrative action before taking it may be advisable, particularly where such action is likely to be controversial.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Standard advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Changed "is advisable" to "may be advisable" to match standard wording.
 * Seeking advice on an administrative action before taking it is advisable - no; as a blanket policy, this would be a recipe for stagnation William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would this objection be overcome if the wording of the last sentence were changed to Unless the situation requires quick action, seeking advice on an administrative action before taking it is advisable where the action is likely to be controversial? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeking advice is one thing. I often seek advice before doing something bold. I usually ask off-wiki, from editors whose judgment I trust and who I don't think are likely to agree with me simply out of friendliness. I find that very useful, and recommend it to everyone. If this is supposed to mean that admins should open a round-table discussion on-wiki before undertaking any action that could be "controversial", then no. First of all, the quality of feedback and discussion at most on-wiki venues is mixed to poor; secondly, and more importantly, admins are supposedly appointed for their judgment. It's a mistake to try to legislate these sorts of things. Admins with good judgment already seek feedback when they need it. Admins with bad judgment aren't going to change their stripes because of an ArbCom finding. MastCell Talk 05:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not admins with bad judgement change for the better, ArbCom need not fail in its duty of reminding them or guiding them on how to better exercise judgement. Although "controversial" appears ambiguous, I would suggest that admins with good judgement should perhaps consider seeking feedback just a little bit more frequently than when they feel they need it - even if admins are "supposedly" appointed for their judgement, they are human, so a small step to reduce the likelihood of "legitimate issues" might be worthwhile. Some mistakes are very avoidable, and more care needs to be taken. That said, I want to emphasise that I'm not suggesting this happen to an extent of every single action that could be "controversial" (that is needlessly bureaucratic, particularly for such an ambiguous term, so I agree to that extent with WMC). I have not been specific as to where and how to seek advice, and I do agree that there's a problem with respect to the quality of feedback being delivered in some discussions, though I also think there's a problem of some admins overlooking feedback that they should've been receptive to. There's no easy solution to any of these issues, but at the end of the day, the only thing I've invented in this is the header - the rest is taken out of prior ArbCom decisions (hence why I considered it standard advice, without a particularly legislative quality). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose: This would reduce most/all admin decisions to discussion by a committee. This would cause backlogs the likes of which no one has ever seen, and would cause many tasks to screech to a halt in the traffic jam. This is not an acceptable solution, and outside the purview of ArbCom, in my opinion, as it would be proscribing something which should only be proscribed by the community (if it was ever proscribed at all). I agree with MastCell's opinion on this point as well. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: blocking
6) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators are expected to refrain from using blocks to respond to personal attacks directed at themselves, or using blocks to further their position in a content dispute. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia. Repeatedly subjecting an user to improper administrator actions, even unintentionally, can also adversely affect that user's: perceptions regarding administrators, block log, future interactions with administrators, and future contributions to Wikipedia. Administrators should therefore be exceedingly careful when using the blocking tool.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Sad that a reminder on this scale appears necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one. And useful. It might be worth removing "content" from the second sentence (so it would end: to further their position in a dispute). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume at some point there'll be a proposed finding of fact to explain how this is relevant to the case at hand? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For over one week I have asked Ncmvocalist on his talk page carefully to document on the evidence page the remarks he has made on this page about ChildofMidnight's block record. Here is the current state of the request on Ncmvocalist's talk page, with Ncmvocalist's latest response at the time of writing. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we've got the proposed findings of fact. I'm pretty unconvinced by these, so I would necessarily oppose this principle as irrelevant to the case at hand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of dispute
1) The dispute encompasses 's conduct, and those users immediately involved therein. Concerns about the climate and global warming areas have not been examined for the purposes of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * To reinforce the scope of this dispute as I am not convinced that some of the parties paid attention to this and it needs to be clear that we are not singling out any consideration from this area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree that this is how the committee should handle the evidence presented in terms of global warming articles, i.e. basically leave it to the side. That's a whole other kettle of fish. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite
2) Shortly prior to making the request for this arbitration, the filing party, engaged in uncivil conduct, including inflammatory personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith that were incompatible with his status as an administrator and Arbitration Committee clerk. He stated that ChildofMidnight "is nothing but a drama loving troll", and voiced a belief that ChildofMidnight has used previous accounts on Wikipedia, based on ChildofMidnight's first two contributions to Wikipedia.  When asked to redact his comment by someone else, he was unreceptive to the concern, once again stating that "he is a drama loving troll".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Calling a spade a spade is what I did here and I stand by that statement now - I wouldn't have brought the case here if I didn't believe it. I think the evidence speaks for itself in this case.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You were right to bring the case; I didn't say otherwise. But if you supposedly believe that it's good judgement to engage in inflammatory commentary, there's a problem with you warning others about comments that don't come close to this effect. The calling a spade a spade excuse has been something that was addressed in a previous case already - C68-FM-SV IIRC. When many users avoid using the word troll to describe even the most tendentious of editors, there's no excuse for you failing to maintain the appropriate level of decorum and professionalism for a user of your position. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that if you take a look at the AN thread where the comment was made, quite a number of users agreed with my comment. If you honestly believe I have a history of making personal attacks or being uncivil, then WP:RFC/U is available for you to voice those concerns. Raising the stakes over one comment isn't how we do things.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've made me very well aware of how things are done around here by evading the concern, again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * In the past, I'd repeatedly warned the Committee about the inappropriate usage of the word trolling, and special care was taken in 2008 as to when it was used. I don't see any reason to believe CoM should be called a troll or any other term that is so inflammatory; I see every reason as to why he'd reasonably believe that he has been subjected to abuse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CoM's behaviour on the various "drama boards", such as ANI and Arbitration pages, has been consistently abrasive for months. He has indeed stirred up drama to a completely unnecessary degree and used false claims of consensus to attempt to further his positions in disputes with administrators. That people have snapped at this is entirely understandable. I would tend to agree that "troll" is probably not quite the right word for this, but it's not too far off, and "drama-loving" is spot on. Ryan's behaviour does not rise to the level of an ArbCom finding. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The truth is the best defense, as they say. There is no rationale to sanction Ryan for this. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this motion illustrate a low point in an otherwise unblemished career, or does Ryan Postlethwaits have a record of intemperate outbursts? I must admit I'm disappointed to see that Ncmvocalist has not really made much of an attempt yet to support his thesis that there has been serious and inflammatory admin abuse which has engendered or exacerbated bad behavior from Child of Midnight. Arbitration cases are made on the evidence page, first and last. The workshop alone is not enough. --TS 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist's findings are not borne out by evidence on the evidence page. Ncmvocalist has prior involvement with ArbCom clerks which could have clouded his judgement. If Ncmvocalist is too busy to provide evidence to back up his statements, he should not make the statements in the first place. Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, your prior involvement in this dispute...actually, I probably shouldn't bring this up in case your judgement becomes clouded to the point that you call me "an annoying little child" as you did with ChildofMidnight, which resulted in this response from ChildofMidnight after which he was blocked for "incivility". I'll take your advice; whether you're provoked or intimidated, it's better to shut up. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The diffs have backed up the statements made here, most particularly in this finding; I really don't care if either of you are going to wikilawyer about arbitration process wonkery because it means zilch. As I said below, I would've considered this isolated if there was receptiveness to the concern. Ryan was not receptive to the concern, even well after the outburst took place, and even above. And then you're going to talk to me about his unblemished career? If this is the regular manner of deflecting responsibility and covering up, then no wonder. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll start by stating that I very often disagree with Ryan about a great many things. That said, I agree with Tarc's assessment of this point. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight
3) [placeholder]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Did not have time to complete this due to time constraints; I trust Nyb can live up to his reputation to come up with a worthy proposal with respect to content contributions and other good contributions that usually act as the first Fof in this type of case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous ArbCom ruling
3.1) ChildofMidnight has been subject to remedies from a previous arbitration committee ruling. In the Obama articles case, ChildofMidnight was admonished for edit-warring, limited to 1RR on Obama pages, and topic-banned from Obama related articles and discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Obvious; though not quite convinced of the relevance here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Block log
3.2) ChildofMidnight's block log contains 21 entries comprising of blocks, unblocks, and other modifications, made by 16 different administrators. Although many of these actions may have been made in good faith, it is apparent that at least 14 of these entries need not have been made. These 14 entries, along with other improper administrative actions, have adversely affected ChildofMidnight's perceptions regarding administrators and the dispute resolution system, her interactions with administrators, and his many other contributions on Wikipedia. Whether more care should have been taken or whether other options should have been explored prior to blocking, ChildofMidnight's express concerns about the needlessly damaging effect of these block log entries were not resolved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, this isn't rocket science. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From the page you link, it looks to me you're inferring that some blocks shouldn't have been made from the fact that they were undone. If so, sorry, that's not going to cut it. When a block is undone, this means only that one administrator disagreed with the block to the point he or she was willing to undo it. It does not mean the block was inappropriate. To make it clear that any block was needless, it has to be considered in complete context, not just the block log itself. This FoF as it stands is untenable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your excuses aren't going to cut it. When a block is made, it means only one administrator considered the circumstances and made the block. When an AE block is reversed, it generally means a community consensus did not support the block, or (as is more usually the case) the block was so poor that it warranted removal. I've redacted names out of courtesy. The page I link to would be senseless to those who don't take the time to look into its actual content (and ironically, context of the actions properly). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm making no excuses, Ncm, as I have nothing for which to excuse myself. I've never blocked ChildofMidnight and I don't even know who has off the top of my head, so I've no reason to try defending someone. But as pretty much everyone here is pointing out, your argument is simply inadequate. Contrary to what you suggest, blocks are often reversed without a clear consensus to do so, in large part because so many people think there should be a consensus for the user to stay blocked, and interpret "no consensus" as "unblock" (I've had this happen to my own blocks back when I used to actually make them). The evidence for this fact is just not there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When AE blocks are reversed in the absence of a clear consensus to do so, this is what happens, so if you are unaware of blocking practice on this point, perhaps you are arguing. Ordinary blocks a separate matter altogether, though there has been a remarkably poor use of the blocking tool even then. Indef blocks because the admin 'forgot' to set it 24 hours; 12 hour blocks because the admin 'overlooked' that it was meant to be 24 hours; a 1 month block in direct contravention of a remedy that said the maximum block length is 1 week. You've said everything to suggest that you've not looked at the block entries. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at exactly what you've written on your own page. (In fact I haven't read the actual entries in the log to avoid biasing myself based on who made the entries; I like your "Admin X" way better. Keeps me less biased.) And yes, I know the AE rules. I see one of the disputed entries involving AE. So that can't really cover it all. Are there a number of really shaky blocks on CoM? It's possible, but the current evidence is insufficient to show it. Furthermore, I'd be pretty surprised if ArbCom were willing to adopt any finding like this simply because of its generality. Findings must make clear the actual wrongs of the users who committed the wrong. This one says nothing except "some admins have been careless/abusive with the admin tools". That doesn't make for a good finding, just like "the entire administrative corps is counselled" doesn't make a good remedy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the cases other than the 10 with a null and void effect, these largely seem to be clerical errors, such as adding a one-second block to fill out the rationale correctly or not filling the block time out properly. These are certainly undesirable, and indeed admins should seek to be more careful, but this does not rise to the level of an ArbCom finding. I don't think we'd even be discussing these entries except that they were made on a user who flings cries of admin abuse so frequently. There's no way these things can justify CoM's behaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your analysis of the block log is rather poor, and using it to excuse ChildofMidnight's atrocious behavior over the last year or so is doubly so. If anything, the block log shows the extent of how little consideration administrators have for the actions of other administrators, taking an "I think the other guy was wrong" approach to granting an unblock rather than (hopefully) the blocked user's acknowledgment of why they earned the block in the first place.  One of these bad unblocks eventually brought about the banning of law/undertow. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments are unsubstantiated. Law/Undertow was banned for a totally different reason; the unblock with respect to CoM was dismissed as moot by the Arbitration Committee as my evidence notes, if you actually took the effort to go through it. I think it's exceptionally poor of you to comment on a proposal without reading its contents. That you ignored the blocking admin's total lack of compliance with the enforcement provisions is telling. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This point has been very sloppily argued by Ncmvocalist and is unconvincing at present. It has not been carefully backed up by evidence on the evidence page. Mathsci (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments are quite substantiated; you are trying to sell us the notion that some (alleged) bad blocks mitigate CoM's bad behavior. That is, to be blunt, bullshit.  This user needs to take responsibility for his own actions, period, and I find much of your workshop contributions to be an exercise in excuse-making.  There is no excuse for CoM maintaining a section on one's talk page to compare other editors to Nazis.  There is no excuse for lashing out at every administrator who has ever supported a sanction against him, at every available opportunity.  There is no excuse to name-drop a varying collection of editors and admins as "POV pushers and harassers" without ever so much as taking one damned step into the WP:DR process to support those assertions.  ChildofMidnight is not a victim. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, so persuasive. Your comment about Law/Undertow contains so much evidence, and you've also provided so much evidence to demonstrate that he has lashed out against "every administrator who has supported a sanction against him, at every opportunity". Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are others who have already provided such evidence on the...wait for it...Evidence page. I have considered my own entry there, but it would probably be largely redundant.  We'll see.  One has to wonder why you are so stridently defending for someone who cannot even be bothered to mount his own defense at his own ArbCom, though. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User conduct request for comment
3.3) In December 2009, ChildofMidnight was subject to a request for comment (See Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight). The request for comment, which was certified by 3 users and endorsed by 26 other users, focused on incivility (see Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight) and outlined the main concern that "ChildofMidnight...has a tendency to lash out at others who "wrong" him in some way or with whom he disagrees." Although many of these incivility concerns appear to be justified, little effort was made by any user to outline the "wrongs", disagreements, and circumstances surrounding the disputed behavior.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * For example, nothing has been mentioned about the block log until we came to this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, this is without merit. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to request for comment
3.4) In response to the RfC/U, ChildofMidnight expressed a number concerns.
 * (i) In the official response, the concerns extended to the flaws of the RfC/U, and a number of the users involved in the RfC/U. ChildofMidnight acknowledged that he understood that his "tone sometimes rubs editors the wrong way", and explained that the underlying concerns need to be raised to fix the issues. ChildofMidnight noted that some of the "wrongs" and misconduct that he has been subjected to have taken a toll, that his image has suffered, and that it is being used as an effective means of censorship. ChildofMidnight ended his official response with "I have read the comments offered here and I will take them into consideration going forward."
 * (ii) ChildofMidnight strongly objected to the close, as one that was improperly made by, an administrator; he labelled the close as "very poor showing. Incompetent, unconstructive, biased and unhelpful". Nihonjoe did not modify his close and failed to follow the rules and guidelines for closing RfC/Us that existed at the time, particularly with respect to disputed summaries.
 * (iii) Despite being frustrated in referring to "that RfC bullshit", ChildofMidnight explained his concern that was misrepresenting ChildofMidnight's response to the RfC/U as one that disregarded the RfC/U.  Bigtimepeace was unreceptive to this concern ("C of M's response to the RfC...wherein C of M complains about a lot of others but does not suggest there is anything he needs to change at all").


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Frankly, if an undue amount of focus was not placed on the close in evidence & previous proposals, particularly in a fashion that fails in neutrality, it is likely that I would not have brought it up and Nihonjoe's name need not be mentioned at all. But if we are going to talk about the close, we need to point to all these circumstances, including, its disputed nature, and the long standing practice with respect to disputed closes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: ii): The page linked to about the so-called rules and guidelines for closing RFCs has been edited by a single user, and shows no sign of having ever been discussed (its associated page remains a redlink). Unless there is something missing here, such a page cannot be considered a policy or guideline and failing to follow it cannot be any form of offence that would merit an AC finding.
 * Re: iii): Even if we assume Bigtimepeace's comment did indeed misrepresent CoM's reaction to the RFC (an assumption I find incorrect, but never mind for now), it does not rise to the level of an ArbCom finding. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bigtimepeace already raised a question about this earlier which I responded to here. As for the misrepresentation comment, I do think that the community's concern about civility, and the higher standard that administrators are held to, trumps this concern. Also, expecting party 1 to be receptive to an party 2's concerns while party 2 acts in a manner that totally ignores that party 1's concerns is not something I'd define as dispute resolution, be it a first resort or last resort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AN RfC/U is an attempt to gather the opinions of the community in regards to whether a user's actions have been problematic or not. The response was overwhelmingly of the opinion that this user has operated outside the bounds of acceptable norms of civility.  This user responded to the RfC/U with precisely the behavior that the proceedings addressed, and did the same to the completely uninvolved administrator who closed it.  Niggling over crossed t's and dotted i's for the actual close doesn't alter the fact that ChildofMidnight displayed utter contempt for the process, the participants, and the admin. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, your link rules and guidelines for closing RfC/Us refers to a page of which you are the creator and sole editor. The page has a redlinked discussion page.  In this composite edit you created a link to that page on WP:RFC, copying and then greatly elaborating the rules for closing.  Your change doesn't seem to have been discussed on WT:RFC. There are few other links to that page--currently this link, three user talk pages including your own, two talk pages of RFCs, and an archived discussion from Talk:Monty Hall problem. I don't think there's a lot wrong with doing that, but as you're depending on that page, which doesn't seem to have had much editorial oversight, I think that should be taken into account. --TS 00:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This finding, like some others Ncmvocalist has advanced, puts what strikes me as almost a defense attorney's spin on the situation. I really don't have a problem with that, and while ArbCom is not a court of law, I have in the past expressed the view that those under threat of sanctions should maybe be able to enlist an advocate on their behalf. Whether willfully or not I think Ncmvocalist is somewhat acting in that capacity here which is worthwhile. However all three parts of the finding above are quite flawed in my view. (i) is an extremely cherry-picked summary of ChildofMidnight's response to the RfC, completely omitting the vast majority of the comment which continued the same problematic behavior. This is not an acceptable description of what happened. (ii) takes Nihonjoe to task for not following a guideline that, as Heimstern Läufer and Tony Sidaway point out, has only been edited by Ncmvocalist and has apparently never been discussed. I queried Ncm about when consensus for this page was arrived at and did not receive a direct reply (incidentally since Nihonjoe is accused of improper behavior here they should have been notified but apparently have not been&mdash;I will do so) . (iii) To say that C of M "explained his concern" to me with this comment is a bit absurd given the incredibly nasty attacks therein, but okay. The following diff cited by Ncm of a comment I made is from 12 days later and is not in response to ChildofMidnight's comment, 90% of which was personal attacks (my actual response at the time is here if anyone cares). It is simply incorrect to say that I am "unreceptive" to ChildofMidnight's concerns if that means I did not listen or care. I understand the concern, I heard it, and I disagreed with it. No one (admin or no) should be implicitly chastized in ArbCom findings simply because they do not agree with someone else's complaint. ChildofMidnight thinks I misrepresented his response to the RfC which is perfectly fine, but I happen to disagree. Incidentally I'm not the only one who has represented C of M's response that way, and as such I'm not sure why Ncmvocalist has singled me out for mention here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Heimstern's description of the "rules and guidelines" page which has only been edited by Ncmvocalist (other than my resizing of the image at the top just a moment ago): it has not been vetted by the community, nor has it been agreed that the content there accurately reflects how things should proceed. I was asked merely to review the RFCU and post a summary of the discussion. Period. I spent a lot of time reviewing the discussion and taking notes on all of the points raised, then summarized the discussion in as fair a manner as possible. That ChildofMidnight (as has already been pointed out) chose to respond in exactly the manner the RFCU was discussing was unfortunate, but that did not require any modification of the summary. All of the significant (and many of the minor) points were clearly summarized. ChildofMidnight chose to have a very minimal participation in the discussion; if he really had concerns, and was interested in addressing those concerns (and the concerns raised by others within the RFCU), he should have taken the opportunity to discuss those concerns during the time the RFCU was open (over 30 days, IIRC). ChildofMidnight has made many great contributions, and those were very clearly pointed out by many participants in the RFCU. However, he also has some serious interaction issues, and he continually refuses to address them in a serious manner. As indicated in the RFCU, there have been a large number of other editors who have tried to work with him and help him improve his interaction skills, but he continues to not play well with others in many ways. I make no apologies for the summary of the RFCU as I believe it is a very fair and accurate summary of the discussion during the RFCU. If ChildofMidnight disagrees with that, that's his right to do so, but that doesn't make it any less accurate or correct. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - One does not get to pass off a page that only they have edited as policy, and try to hold others to it. This section should be stricken entirely. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Conduct since RfC/U
3.5) Since the RfC/U closed, although there has been improvement in ChildofMidnight's conduct at times, ChildofMidnight's conduct has not improved to a level that consistently matches Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum.    In particular, ChildofMidnight's rhetoric has often became increasingly strident and/or unprofessional in expressing his concerns about the improper use of the blocking tool by administrators. 


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * More accurate I think. Reasonably consistently obviously; we cannot by any stretch of the imagination expect perfection. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite admonished
1) Ryan Postlethewaite is admonished for engaging in inflammatory conduct that is incompatible with his position on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Nothing, or even a reminder, would have been fine, had he not been so dismissive of the concern when it was raised. Calling an established editor a drama loving troll, particularly in a high profile noticeboard discussion, is inappropriate and needlessly attracts drama and controversy of its own. It would not have been a surprise if any other editor made the same comment and ended up blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not approve of Ryan's "troll" comment and said so at the thread in question at the time. It is absolutely true that it was inappropriate. However taken in isolation I do not see this one comment as rising to the level where an admonishment from ArbCom is required (and it's not because Ryan is an admin, I would say the same thing for any other editor were we talking about one incident in isolation). Also as Tony points out in the related FoF above, the lack of evidence supporting this and other workshop proposals by Ncmvocalist is a pretty big problem as it rather puts the cart before the horse. If this were part of a longstanding pattern on Ryan's part (as has been documented for ChildofMidnight) I would likely feel differently. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight restricted
2) ChildofMidnight is placed under a screened editing restriction in the Wikipedia namespace and Wikipedia talk namespace. ChildofMidnight is banned from posting directly to Wikipedia pages, Wikipedia talk pages or any user talk pages, with the following exceptions:
 * (i) ChildofMidnight may post directly to pages specifically related to Template:Did you know, Good articles, and Featured content (including nominations, reviews and their respective talk pages);
 * (ii) ChildofMidnight may post directly to user talk pages of those who signed Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/User talk restriction.
 * (iii) An approved screener may post on ChildofMidnight's behalf, but must accompany each proxied post with the notation, proxied for ChildofMidnight. The screener's function is to ensure that the only posts which go live are consistent with Wikipedia's standards of behavior and decorum. ChildofMidnight may submit proposed posts and edit-summaries to the screener via email or equivalent discreet means. The screener may manage submissions as he or she sees fit (rejecting proposals, requiring rewrites, imposing quotas, etc.) An "approved screener", for the purposes of this restriction, shall be any willing and experienced editor listed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Screened editing restriction, and will require on-wiki approval by ChildofMidnight and the Arbitration Committee. This screening restriction may be terminated by a clear and substantial community consensus, or by an Arbitration Committee motion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Durova's idea which was very workable, but with some tweaking. Even if an administrator is uninvolved, it would be inadvisable to leave it solely in a single administrator's hands given the concerns expressed about many administrators who have intervened with respect to ChildofMidnight so far. Editors may withdraw from the user talk list by striking their signatures, but must provide a timestamp. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight counselled
3) ChildofMidnight is encouraged to continue to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and make further attempts to review community feedback and improve his approach. ChildofMidnight is reminded that gaming or even indirectly evading his restrictions will not be tolerated, and that he should aim to improve his conduct to a standard where restrictions will no longer be necessary.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I do hope he will take this seriously, in good faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrators counselled
4) Administrators are encouraged to take greater care when using the blocking tool, especially with respect to ChildofMidnight.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Tarc's statement says it all. It's CoM's behavior that is at fault in these situations, not "administrators" SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems to be appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Without the last clause, this might be reasonable if not for a much too broad scope. It would not make sense for the committee to advise the entire admin corps on things that do not apply to all of them, or even necessarily the majority of them. With the last clause, this looks a heck of a lot like special treatment for CoM, and that's not cool at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, you seem to have made my point for me as to why it's necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth do I have any relation to this? Have you even read my logs? I haven't used the block tool in nearly three months, and even longer since I've used it from anything except simple vandalism. On the contrary, my log shows that some administrators do not need this remedy, as some of us (I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who's more or less quit blocking) don't even use the block button much. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Volatile users do not get a "handle with care" tag stamped on their foreheads, sorry.  No extra care needs to be taken with any user over another; all should be subject to the same treatment. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first part is great as a general principle, the second regarding ChildofMidnight is obviously a problem. This remedy is no doubt based on Ncm's FoF 3.2 but is not backed up by actual evidence, and thus somewhat seems to come out of nowhere. Clearly some of the stuff in ChildofMidnight's block log should not be there&mdash;I myself reversed what I take to be an excellent example of a bad block implemented with far too little care&mdash;and probably that is worth pointing out in a finding of fact (this proposal is too unsubstantiated while drawing conclusions with which I don't agree, but in theory I'm okay with the idea of something like that). I do think there is a general problem with a number of admins who are too trigger happy with the block button, and I would love to see that problem dealt with by ArbCom or the community or the Block Police (wait&mdash;the last one is a bad idea). But I don't think that's what this case is about, and as I said no evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise. Ncmvocalist has made an effort in the workshop to turn the case (at least in part) into a general comment on admin behavior, but so far the general consensus seems to be that that is not warranted. To say that does not at all mean that we do not have a problem with block-happy admins, rather it means that this is not the right case to produce findings relating to that problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there never will be a "right case" to produce findings relating to that problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should ChildofMidnight violate an editing restriction, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block duration shall increase to one month. Administrators are reminded to take care prior to using the blocking tool and making a block entry. All blocks are to be logged at Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This will ensure proper consideration is given to blocks and will ensure the restriction is not terminated by an administrator who simply doesn't like ChildofMidnight. If there are problems, either the community or ArbCom can terminate it and replace it with the next appropriate remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: