Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Attacks and "unsourced" accusations against other editors

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight#Attacks and "unsourced" accusations against other editors.

General defamation of other contributors not specified

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight#General defamation of other contributors not specified.

Previous Arbitration findings against ChildofMidnight

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight - ChildofMidnight was found to have deleted and refactored others parties comments and engaged in attacking other editors. He was also found to have edit warred and templated other editors.

Previous Arbitration remedies against ChildofMidnight

• Topic banned from Obama articles.
• Admonished and restricted for edit warring.

Problematic edits to global warming related talk pages (both article and user talk)

Taken from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.

1. from Talk:Global warming
   Unproductive discussion, repeats ad nauseum issues without source and substantial reasons, WP:FORUM
2. I'm sure our admin elite will sort this mess out in no time once they're made aware of it and have a chance to review the evidence of BozMo's foul play."
   Civility, disparaging sardonic demeanor.
3. " ...involvement has been very disruptive and his enforcements have only gone after one "side""
   Battleground menality.
4. " swan song of an incompetent and dishonest admin to me ... So you join an elite club of abusive admins who act improperly"
   Unwilling to conduct RFC/U, responds with personal attacks
5. " doesn't change the fact that your involvement has been grotesquely biased and damaging."
   See previous.

   Note: Additional Diffs provided in context below. They are numbered.

Warnings received for global warming topic conduct

Taken from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.

1. Forum warning by 2over0 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Name calling warning by 2over0
3. Civility warning by 2over0
4. Civility and bad faith block warning by BozMo ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Probation warning by 2over0

Response to RfC

It's worth pointing out that ChildofMidnight's response to the RfC was not particularly constructive, which is part of why we are here. He first ignored it and indeed took a somewhat jokey stance on the whole matter, asking another editor "to post something nice about me at my RfC. Prefereably with a picture of cute puppies or snuggly children or something." He also (again) referred to one of the editors participating in the RfC as one of the "abusive trolls, drama mongers, and stalking harassers" on Wikipedia. The following interaction was further evidence of not taking the matter seriously (while still calling for the outright banning of 7 editors). [1] [2] Sticking this poem (written by a now indefinite blocked editor) on his user talk page also demonstrated some contempt for the RfC, and all of this happened before ChildofMidnight even bothered to make a statement. The response, when it finally came, showed that ChildofMidnight saw nothing wrong with his behavior, and indeed it was a textbook example of the kind of problems that had been detailed in the RfC. Finally, after the RfC was summarized in a perfectly fair and admirable manner by Nihonjoe, ChildofMidnight dismissed the close as "incompetent, unconstructive, biased and unhelpful" which suggests he basically does not view anything about the RfC as legitimate, a point which was recently reinforced when he referred to it as "that RfC bullshit."

Problematic editing since the RfC

The following is not exhaustive, but it shows that the behavior documented in the RfC has continued since it closed in late January.

1. [3] "I don't know who you think you are, but you're not going to bully, harass and abuse me this way without my protesting."
2. [4] "the chimps running this place wouldn't know kind a word and a handshake from a pile of poop in their lap."
3. [5] [6] References to "incivility, refactoring, attack pages in user space, wikilawyering over content, abusive POV pushing, and COI" on the part of another user, also first diff ends (ironically) with the comment "Let's stay focused on the core issues here and avoid disrupting discussion with irrelevant insinuations ascribing motives...," despite claiming in that very comment that another editor was using Wikipedia to carry out a personal feud and push their POV.
4. Discussion about a title change of a controversial article done by ChildofMidnight that essentially no one else agreed with.
5. [7] [8] What I would characterize as "conspiracy mongering" over the BLP deletions on the talk page of Jimbo Wales, with a couple of jabs at Jimbo and the comment "And by the way there are several well organized packs of editors who use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes and to push their personal biases, including by disparaging biographical article subjects that they disagree with" thrown in as well. See also this thread on Jimbo's talk page in a similar vein
6. [9] Reference to a couple of admins who "been quite active...in carrying out a reign of censorship against those with opinions they don't share."
7. [10] [11] "Get the fuck over it and move on. Your disruptive nonsense is absurd. Wikipedia is infested with disruptive POV pushers and trolls who do real damage to collegiality and content. So why you've joined up with the likes of Chillum and GeorgeWilliamHerbert who go after good faith editors they don't like I have no idea. Stop jabbing those frustrated with the idiocy and abusive behaviors that go on here and start confronting the actual problem." and "I'm more than happy to give you an example of a personal attack Cool Hand Luke, but I'm 100% the trolls and disruptive monkeys will use it against me. But if you really really want me to let fly I'll take your word that permission has been granted and I'll show you what a personal attack looks like."
8. [12] Textbook example of a battleground mentality, here on the climate change articles, makes reference to editors behaving "like childish jerks" then notes "If admins can't be bothered to put a stop to his baiting and abuse I am not abiding by any further efforts to play paddy cake with disruptive and antagonistic propagandists. Bring it!"
9. [13] A very revealing talk page thread, User:Geometry guy actually complements ChildofMidnight and points out some relevant information while remaining completely civil throughout the discussion, yet ChildofMidnight calls for Geometry guy to be blocked (that admin had done absolutely nothing) and said "You guys are acting like bullies and it's not okay. Wise up.", among other comments.
10. [14] In this thread tells an admin that "Your biased involvement in the AGW articles has been enormously disruptive and unhelpful, you've been called out by lots of editors, and you should slink away with what's left of your severely damaged reputation. Have you no shame?", then when another admin shows up to point out a simple matter of fact ChildofMidnight attacks him as well, saying "in my experience you're something of an expert at going after one side of a dispute."
11. [15] Probably the nastiest comment I've ever been on the receiving end of (at least from an established contributor) and easily could have been blocked for this though that would not have helped much in my view. "I'd like to tell you what I think of you, but I'd most certainly be blocked for it. But obviously promising something repeatedly and then violating those promises repeatedly makes you big fat liar, does it not? I have no interest in interacting with abusive, disruptive, or dishoenst admins. Your utter disregard for keeping your word and your contempt for appropriate conduct is disgusting and despicable....It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were involved in the socking that goes on here to push propaganda. See if you can't find a little integrity would you? Leave me alone and stop acting like malicious bully."

While I had some hope for awhile that ChildofMidnight was going to stick to article contributions and the like after the RfC (either just to stay out of trouble or as a tacit acknowledgment that some of the concerns were valid, protestations to the contrary not withstanding), it's become quite apparent that the problems are continuing and that we need a remedy to address them. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

ChildofMidnight attacks others personally and treats Wikipedia as a battleground, September 2009

This submission is limited to my interaction with ChildofMidnight in relation to my block of him, in response to a WP:AE request, for his violation of his Obama topic ban in September 2009. The following list is not exhaustive.

1. 03:30, 20 September 2009: "Shame on you for your incompetence and lack of courtesy. (...) Your disgusting behavior towards a long term good faith editor is despicable. I will have to shower to get your stink off me. (...) does all any POV pushing editor have to do is chase down some ignorant swiss kid that doesn't have a clue (...) It's the worst kind of typical bullshit disruptive incompetence that makes editing Wikipedia such a stressful experience despite all it spositive aspects. You are utterly lacking in basic good judgment and common sense."
2. 03:42, 20 September 2009: "WHERE IS THE FUCKING EDIT SANDSTEIN??? SHow me where I edited something about Obama you fucking prick or retract this month long block you pulled out of your ass. (...) I'm sick of it. DO YOUR FUCKING DUTY AND QUIT ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE."
3. 03:51, 20 September 2009: "I'm on a 6 month topic ban because some moron of an admin blocked me with no warning or discussion for 4 edits over two days with discussion inbetween on the talk page. (...) I;ve abided every bullshit inane restriction these harassing sensors and POV pushers have gotten imposed on me, and yet here's Sandstein who is VERY liberal assisting them with their dirty work. I hold my peace on lots of bullshit, believe me, but when some asshole blocks me for a month when I haven't done anything wrong I can't be expected to point out that it is utterly uncivil and reflects a level of incompetence that is truly staggering."
4. 04:00, 20 September 2009: If calling an asshole and asshole gets me blocked then so be it. But how else am I supposed to describe someone who acts like that?"
5. 16:19, 20 September 2009: "It's common for thugs, cheats, crooks, and liars to smear people on Wikipedia even when they have no opportunity to respond. Treating good faith editors like shit and having them deal with this kind of abuse seems to be status quo for you and other abusive admins. I would simply ask that you and other rude, uncivil and incompetent characters leave me alone and cease the harassment and stalking. (...) Admins frequently engage in personal vendettas and go hunting in packs like rabid dogs. (...) Ganging up on an editor with this kind of relentless harassment and abuse is a form of censorship and Wikinazism that is utterly disgusting and totally unacceptable. (...) I suppose in your perverted world view you can justify treating other people like shit and lying, even when the other party acts only in good faith and hasn't done anything wrong, because you think your ideology is the one that should be imposed on others. Attacking those you disagree with to impose and further your world view is disgusting. That kind of ignorant intolerance should make you shudder. You are no different from other book burners, censors, and those who abide other forms of abuse and harassment like rape, beatings, torture and other thuggery used to intimidate and silence people."
6. 18:59, 20 September 2009: "This thuggish behavior and the disgusting damage it does to the integrity of Wikipedia has been encouraged by dishonest and corrupt admins. It has also been condoned by an incompent arbcom committee that can’t be bothered to enforce our most basic and fundamental policies and values."
7. 20:42, 20 September 2009: "Your lies, deceptions and misrepresentations are pretty sickening. You and the other abusive stalkers have a lot in common. But from everything I can tell you are a very sad, lonely and antisocial individual. Maybe lashing out at people you disagree with makes you feel better? I suggest you try collegial collaboration and discussion to resolve disputes in the future. You might even make a freind. If you aren't competent or honest enough to do that I understand."
8. 22:23, 20 September 2009: "Editors and administrators can misrepresent and lie about my edits and edit history to smear me. They can harass, stalk, and attempt to intimidate me with impunity. Fine. I don't want to discuss it any more. Let Arbcom do what they want. If they choose to continue to encourage liars and thugs then so be it."
9. 23:37, 20 September 2009: "I'll keep in mind Flonight means well as she assumes bad faith and passes judgment on me based on smears and lies about my editing history and motives. It is somewhat comforting and encouraging that she isn't intentionally assisting a long term campaign of stalking, bullying, harassment and censorship."

ChildofMidnight expects others to adhere to conduct standards that he himself ignores, September 2009

Within minutes of the edits cited above, ChildofMidnight deplores the perceived lack of civil interaction on the part of others, lecturing them about good conduct. This list, too, is not exhaustive.

1. 22:34, 20 September 2009: "You’ve turned your back on assuming good faith and encouraging collegial discussion to resolve disputes. Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior."
2. 22:49, 20 September 2009: "Take care of yourself and thanks for the helpful intervention to calm things on an article discussion page where there was a dispute. It's very frustrating to me that disputes quickly escalate with ad hominem attacks, and I think it's partly a result of the lack of an appropriate mediation mechanism."
3. 22:39, 20 September 2009: "Please remember to abide by our policy to assume good faith."
4. 23:33, 20 September 2009: "Also, collegial discussion and problem solving through mediation should always be the first option in resolving disputes and blocking should be the last option. :) Sadly even our Arbs don't seem to get that, which may explain the high level of tension, incivility and disatisfaction."
5. 10:11, 21 September 2009 : "I hope that at some point I will be allowed to edit in peace and that collegial discussion and collaboration will replace the gangland environment that's been created by abusive cliques and their admin enforcers."
6. 17:12, 21 September 2009: "My point is just that if we can try to resolve the situation amicably and without causing any more brouhaha that would be best. As always, the focus should be on the article content and how best to improve the content rather than the editors involved. I'm not attacking anyone for being frustrated over the reverts or the COI, I'm just suggesting that we try to work out our differences in as collegial a way as possible. My suggestion would be for Benjiboi to use the talk pages to raise any issues and for other issues to try and be patient and reasonable in addressing his concerns."
7. 19:17, 21 September 2009: "Your actions lack respect and you don't show consideration to your fellow editors. You refuse to make reasonable attempts to resolve disputes in a collegial way. (...) I have found you to be exceptionally rude and uncivil. Try collaborating for a change and stop shooting first and asking questions later. You do a lot of great work, but your approach is NOT civil or respectful to your fellow editors."
8. 20:16, 21 September 2009: "The beauty of a wiki is that we can work together to help each other and we can fix all the mistakes that inevitably happen. This approach makes editing collegial and collaborative and combines our strengths. Playing gotcha and busting each other when we mess up just puts everyone on the defensive and encourages a gangland and battlefield mentality where editors feel compelled to team up in order to get some protection."
9. 21:51, 21 September 2009: "I find it very ironic that you can't manage a more collegial and respectful approach in your own policing work."
10. 18:10, 22 September 2009: I suggest you focus less on actions "solely in the form of enforcing policy as an administrator" and more on resolving disputes and helping good faith editors improve the encyclopedia by treating them respectfully and collegially."

Baseless and fabricated accusations of admin abuse

Just another illustrative example of CoM's mode of operation, which happened to concern myself.

In November, CoM came to my talkpage to complain about a block of mine (in a matter unrelated to him) which was being reviewed at AE at the time, accusing me of "abusive" and "disruptive" actions, and repeatedly claiming there was allegedly a "consensus" to that effect on the AE thread:

• [16]: "several uninvolved [...] admins [...]who have looked into the matter and found your [i.e. Fut.Perf.'s] actions to be abusive"
• [17] "clear consensus of uninvolved editors" [...] "when [mistakes] are pointed out to you repeatedly by numerous uninvolved parties"
• [18] "consense [sic] among uninvolved editors and admins who have made it clear that his actions have been overly aggressive and improper."

A simple comparison with what was actually said in the AE thread shows these claims were pure fabrication: while a few people cautiously argued in favour of a milder block, not a single uninvolved person had in fact suggested I had acted improperly in imposing one.

CoM continued to reiterate these accusations even after being told off my page [19] [20].

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.