Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Tiptoety (Talk) & Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

Additional comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by JzG

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

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

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

Statement by Bigtimepeace

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by JohnWBarber

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

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

The focus of this should also be broadened to include behavior by editors who attack CoM, repeatedly, without provocation. CoM's own reaction to these attacks is sometimes unfortunate, but the attacks against him are real, provocative and hurtful. It'd be in the best interests of Wikipedia to straighten out User:Tarc, User:Mathsci and probably others. ~~I've posted some diffs about those two at the A/N discussion and I've got a few more to add here when I have time.~~ (Tarc vs. CoM: [1] [2] [3] Tarc's attitude at AN/I [4] and at warning admin's talk page [5] and later [6] MATHSCI vs. CoM: here's a combination of many edits by CoM, minding his own business back in October [7], and here's a sudden visitation from William Connolley [8] and hot on Connolley's heels is Mathsci to revert all of CoM's work [9], that Oct 8, 2009 edit is the only time Mathsci ever had an interest in editing Honey; more: [10] [11], read this short thread and edit summary from Dec 15 [12] M's reaction is to what looks like friendly raillery based on M's Dec 5 announced [13] participation in his "bacon challenge"); then, twelve days [14] and thirteen days [15] after the Dec 15 dust-up, CoM is fine for Mathsci to chat with. Then it's back to antagonism later. If Mathsci was friendly with CoM for a while, what made him so upset with CoM later? If M's participation in CoM's "bacon challenge" wasn't friendly, why did M say he would participate? If M finds CoM so obnoxious, why did M chat with CoM on his talk page in late December, two weeks after the last tiff? Mathsci was either disturbingly erratic or playing some kind of weird, taunting game with CoM. Either way, it's ~~spooky~~ a wild rollercoaster of friendliness and intensely angry words that, if it were directed at me, would bother me mostly for its bizarre swings; but I don't know everything that was going on, and perhaps CoM is/was fine with it. It seems to me it would make the environment stressful.

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

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

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

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

@CoM -- I haven't tried getting ahold of CoM off-wiki. I was putting it off, and I don't know if I'll ever try, now. I have better things to do with my time than be involved with this. After having had time to calm down, he's very publicly made personal attacks -- disparaging comments about the character of fellow editors without providing any evidence. As Durova pointed out, RyanPostlethwaite's language doesn't exactly help CoM concentrate on his own past behavior, but that doesn't excuse CoM. He has no excuse for this. If you're reading this, ChildofMidnight, let me repeat: There is no excuse for this. I agree with (or found plausible) nearly everything you said in your statement other than the personal attacks -- made without providing evidence. I've spent time trying to defend you by putting some of your conduct in context. But this is the type of conduct you've been warned about in the past,[17] and yet you flaunt your disregard for those warnings right here. You've just provided definitive evidence that, at least right now, both you and Wikipedia would be better off with a parting of the ways. Attacking more editors, including ArbCom members in front of ArbCom is worse than stupid, it's wrong. It's the kind of behavior I've strenuously objected to from others. It's the kind of behavior that gets justified blocks. I don't know whether, if CoM had been treated better in the past (there is a long history of bad blocks later overturned), this editor would have been much less trouble. I doubt we'll ever know. Wikipedia isn't set up for consistently great behavior from admins -- they're volunteers, untrained and self-select for the actions they take, so everyone can be expected to get batted around a bit, the angrier editors more than others. I wish he'd stuck to creating articles like Pissing contest rather than participating in them. I can't believe he mentions returning to Wikipedia. We're in indefinite-block territory here, no return without a promise to abide by behavior policies, and not for a while. Too bad, damn fine content editor who had some good insights about the encyclopedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: To my knowledge I have never conducted "attack after attack" on CoM. Attack [18] after attack [19] after attack [20]. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: As for Mathsci being offended with CoM's question about a choice of spanking implements, Mathsci appears to have given the impression that the joke was at least not particularly offensive to him by reacting this way [21] to CoM's first mention of that kind of corporal punishment. By itself, the final insult in that thread isn't a big deal, but it's part of a months-long pattern. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

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

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

Statement by ZuluPapa5*

I've recently encountered Child of Midnight (CoM) in the Climate Change articles, which are under probation. There are concerns about maintaining a NPOV, incivil article ownership and bias Probation Enforcement [22] ~~[23]~~. Fortunately, CoM is one of the few who has made efforts to raise awareness to help improve the article environment (this is in my motivation here too); however, he was then caught up in a bad (maybe bias itself) block that preceded this Arbitration request. I believe this editor has fair and meritorious intentions for Wikipedia. His style has upset others; however, he has demonstrated good humor and diligence to go in where others run away, or are driven off, so as to benefit this project and .... the other editors who may be suffering a bad wrap. Admonishing his tone of language might be beneficial; however, I believe restricting his topics will not help Wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CoM's statement

Following CoM's statement ~~above~~, it seems as if the editor is saying the reason this case is requested, has to do with the environment in the Climate Change general sanctions [24]. I agree with this. There was a Bad Block placed on CoM after commenting there, then while being 1 week blocked, there was a General Sanction enforcement request place on CoM. Then an ANI notice to release the block for the General Sanction enforcement request to proceed (which was released). Then this ArbCom request followed and overlapped. That's three actions (4 total) which overlapped this one [25], which is now suspended pending the result here. I would say the Bad Block started this recent chain; however, CoM is obviously not immune from folks wishing to complain. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for Context

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

View by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

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

Statement by Mathsci

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

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

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

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

Comment ChildofMidnight has complained profusely about the term "old fruit" (= "old bean" in British English). He on the other hand felt at liberty on my talk page to request which implement should be used for spanking me. [26] I can't quite understand why JohnWBarber/Noroton seems to think that removing remarks on spanking by ChildofMidnight from my own talk page with the edit summary "rv idiotic trolling" is a personal attack. (I would guess ChildofMidnight was trying to shock me by escalating the tone of his remarks; I did find the later remarks offensive and not the sort of thing I like to have on my talk page. JohnWBarber obviously strongly disapproves of this view.) Nor can I quite understand why reminding ChildofMidnight of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight during his month-long campaign of disruption on project pages constitutes a personal attack. I can understand that JohnWBarber has determined to defend ChildofMidnight by whatever means he has at his disposal: lacking any evidence, he seems to be grasping at straws. I have a vague memory that his history as Noroton involved similar episodes directly involving ChildofMidnight, but arbitrators are probably more aware of that than me. Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

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

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

The best long term results usually happen when we encourage steps in the right direction. We have all seen the occasional administrator who blocks an editor shortly after the editor makes a retraction: it discourages the editor from attempts to be reasonable--why even try to do things right when one is going to get it anyway? The same effect holds true for arbitration. So although this case request is meritorious in many ways, it's also timed and framed in ways that undermine its chances of any good outcome and filed by someone whose recent statements have been heated.[27][28]

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

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

Statement by TS

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

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

Statement by BozMo

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

Statement by Beeblebrox

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

Statement by Aymatth2

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

Response to example [29]

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

Plea by Spartaz

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

Seconded by Heimstern

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socking

Since he's socked to obviously provoke a situation. Should the ban be reset and/or extended?--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this happening? I don't see any mention of it at the SPI page. If proven, I think WP:AE is the place to go for such a request though. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the front of this case page, namely User:Electroshoxcure's block log. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must be time to unclutter the watchlist, that got lost in the shuffle. Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so should the year be reset or should we just ask to make it indef since he's shown no regard for the community at all? if he's getting involved in situations 2 months after his ban he's probably kicking around as an IP or even more accounts. It says a CU was run, but was it? Maybe one should be run to check if he has any other accounts open right now.--Crossmr (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is not for fishing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As this was already run/confirmed, I reset. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, while moot in this instance, checking the IP of someone known to have socked for other socks isn't fishing. — Coren ^(talk) 22:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Was there an SPI case? I can't find it if so. LadyofShalott 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it a couple of days to let the dust settle, but it's surely time now to extend CoM's ban to indefinite. Rd232 ^talk 19:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: ChildofMidnight

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) at 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: ChildofMidnight arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

ChildofMidnight banned

1) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 10 to 0, 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[30] (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)

Amendment 1

Due to continued sockpuppetry and repeated resetting of the one year ban, ChildofMidnight is now indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.

Statement by Beeblebrox

Due to multiple incidents of sockpuppetry it seems clear that merely re-setting CoM's ban each time is not an effective remedy. I therefore suggest that the ban be extended to an indefinite full site ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NW: I suppose it could, but I thought it best if there was no disconnect between the block and the ban. Otherwise when the current year of banning was over it might be expected that the block would simply be lifted. Beeblebrox(talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to several of the below remarks: There was quite a stack of behavioral evidence presented at the SPI case. No, there is not a "smoking gun" a single piece of evidence that trumps any argument to the contrary, but I firmly believe the various pieces of evidence taken as a whole add up to another CoM sock. I don't appreciate the accusations of vindictiveness or doing something just because I don't like somebody, and I'll thank you to either quantify such statements with evidence of your own or stop making them. In actuality I kind of liked CoM and I thought it was a shame he ended up banned, but he brought it upon himself because he didn't know when to quit. And since he apparently still hasn't figured out when to quit I don't see any logic in assuming resetting the ban timer yet again will suffice to get the message across. Sometimes even a user with as many great content contributions as CoM simply can't function within the minimum standards of civility required by this project and we have no choice but show them the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: He was in fact given a chance to comment at the SPI, he was unblocked for part of the period that it was opened and made numerous edits to articles but ignored the SPI until after I blocked him as a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"accusations of vindictiveness" In my case, I'd see the actions here as far less suspicious if it hadn't been for the CU.Why call for a CU if you're going to block anyway, no matter what the CU reports? If the DUCK evidence was overwhelming, there's no need for a CU (AIUI (admittedly poorly), CU is discouraged in such cases on privacy grounds). If the CU will have no influence on the outcome, then again, why have a CU? This looks too much like a CU that wasn't for investigative purposes, but for extra justification to a pre-judged decision. That's not a behaviour that I believe to be how we're supposed to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd clarified this sufficiently, but I guess not. I requested the CU (not Beeblebrox) on the basis of enough evidence to persuade a respected checkuser to do it. For various reasons the checkuser took fully five days to conclude, in which time I collated rather more evidence - ultimately enough that I wouldn't have asked for CU in the first place if I'd had it all originally. Rd232 ^talk 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this request today because the situation came to a head today, but this will likely be my last opportunity to comment on the matter until at least next Tuesday. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone, I am literally on my way out the door for the next four days, but if you would all have a look at my last posting to FSN talk page [31] you will find he has accidently given us the smoking gun we were looking for. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like there has been an awful lot of discussion while I was gone, and CoM's "ban timer" has been reset once again, but no decision on my proposal. I'd like to clarify that I am seeking a modification because the one-year ban is not being respected and is therefore an ineffective remedy. An indefinite ban does not really solve that problem, but it would streamline things when these socks are detected in that they are generally disruptive users anyway so we wouldn't need to worry so much about whether they really are CoM or not as there would not be a clock to reset every time. In short, it would enable us to take a WP:RBI approach, reducing the drama level. Of course if the arbs are unconvinced despite the cumulative merit of all the various pieces of evidence then we are back to square one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker's latest remarks: It was never my intention for this to be about determining if FSN was really CoM or not. As far as I am concerned that was determined before I ever came here. My intent was actually to reduce the level of drama around this by simply banning CoM outright so that it didn't really matter next time he socked as the ban timer would no longer be in play. Clearly, this conversation has not gone as I had intended but I must say I am somewhat surprised at the attitude coming from the arbs, which basically seems to be that we ignore the behavioral evidence but don't overturn the block of FSN or the reset of the ban on CoM, and basically ignore the idea of extending the ban to indefinite, which would be a fairly normal and appropriate response to socking by a banned user. This ambiguity leaves everyone involved wondering what is supposed to happen now. If CoM was socking again, which I am obviously convinced of, he should at the very least be blocked indefinitely, as we would do to any other serial sockpuppeteer. If he wasn't, which seems unlikely, then the ban timer needs to be set back to where it was before this latest incident, and I suppose my block of FSN needs to be reconsidered as well. I never intended this to be a rerun of the SPI case, but it has turned into that instead of a discussion amending CoM's ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you guys have a lot on your plate, but would it be possible to get some sort of unambiguous statement that represents an actual decision by the committee? A point that seems to have been missed by some is that I did in fact block FSN for being a sockpuppet of CoM. That is the logged reason the account is currently blocked. Yes, they were generally a disruptive user otherwise (just like CoM) and were particularly nasty and resorted to personal attacks when confronted or blocked (just like CoM) but I explicitly blocked them for being a sock. Right now another user is on FSNs talk page basically preparing to edit-by-proxy on FSN's behalf. If he is a ban evading sockpuppet, that needs to be stopped. If he isn't, then my block was invalid. Since no admin has seen fit to accept any of his unblock requests it seems the burden is on ArbCom to make that determination, whether you want to or not. Sorry guys, as I said this was never what I intended to this conversation to be about, but it is now and it appears the onus is on you to resolve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a pending unblock request and a thread at ANI regarding this, and nobody seems to want to take any action because the committee is involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Could this not be accomplished just as easily with an indef block? NW(Talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Andy Dingley

This appears to have arisen in response to sock allegations for Freakshownerd (talk · contribs), as described at SPI/ChildofMidnight

Behavioural similarities were sufficient to justify use of CU, which didn't report any visible connection between the two accounts. Despite this, the instigating admin Beeblebrox has proceeded to indef block the alleged sock and is now seeking an indef ban extension for CoM. At least two editors have expressed concern over this action, in the absence of strong evidence to support the sock allegation. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The following was intended for the SPI page, but I note an extremely rapid close and archiving of that page]

By "FSN has given up challenging", don't you mean "FSN has now been silenced by an indef block"?

It's all too easy to use phrases like "kangaroo court", but how about some evidence to back up these actions? As pointed out just above, WP:AGF still applies, particularly if contrary evidence isn't forthcoming. This is how we're supposed to work. Neither of these accounts are even vandals - "blocks are protective, not punitive", etc., etc. If either of these editors is secretly conspiring to undermine the foundations of the wikistate, then I'm sure their future actions will make that evident and we can get round to tarring and feathering them tomorrow, when it's obvious. In the meantime, a coincidental interest in obscure chocolate is no evidence for an indef ban! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern"FSN most likely is a sock of CoM" I agree. But "most likely is" just isn't good enough when we're throwing around indef bans - particularly an indef ban of someone who, if we're wrong, wasn't even involved! Letting FSN run for longer isn't harmful - they're not one of our real annoyances of vandals and trolls. If they really are block-worthy / ban-worthy / CoM socking, then this will surely become very clear with time and we can act on them then, when it's unambiguous. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rd232

The behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive#Evidence_submitted_by_Rd232 proves beyond reasonable doubt that user:Freakshownerd is (a) a sock and (b) specifically, another sock of User:ChildofMidnight. Beyond that, a number of users commented on how familiar FSN's responses to a recent block were (reminiscent of CoM). FSN barely denied the socking allegation and made no serious attempt to critique the evidence, and appears to have given up. It appears likely that having had two socks discovered, CoM saw little mileage in challenging this instance, and is instead heading for further socking. Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: FSN has user talk access as well as email possibilities to challenge the evidence. So there is no question of him being "silenced". In addition, if you're going to pursue the same "ignore and downplay the evidence" tactic as FSN, you're just going to make me wonder who the hell you are (I don't know you from Adam, or why you'd defend FSN when he won't do so himself).Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're accusing me of being a sock, please come out and say so. You might note that I've also been critical of how RAN has been treated lately, so I'm clearly a sock! I very much do not appreciate your insinuation that anyone who does not support your actions is a useful idiot and dupe of Eastasia. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of RAN, it appears clear that FSN shares CoM's interest in drama. As the most exciting show on channel-wiki this season, RAN is a magnet to anyone so inclined. In other news, WMC sometimes talks about the weather. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was accusing somebody of something, they would know it. "wonder" was a precisely chosen word not implying any knowledge; and it would cover friendship or shared views as easily as socking, if I was inclined to pursue the thought, which I'm decidedly not. Rd232 ^talk 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: well I'm disappointed you would say that. Would you address point 5 of my evidence, which I think is the single most damning point? (And incidentally, it is silly to say the negative CU was grounds for the block; it was held to be overridden by the strength of the behavioural evidence.) Rd232 ^talk 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find an 8-day old account jumping to RAN's defence on his user talk page and at ANI, with no apparent reason [not having previously visited either], at all strange - especially given the type of CoM-reminiscent remarks? You don't find it too coincidental that after CoM's sock creates a Pasco County nature reserve, FSN does so some time later? There are 3000+ counties in the US - what are the odds not only on creating a nature reserve article (let's say that's high, for a prolific user, though I dare say many prolific users haven't) but on the exact same county? At 3000:1 I find it highly unlikely that this is co-incidence. Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hugely suspicious, but suspicion alone doesn't justify an indef ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any one of the points listed in my SPI evidence looks suspicious. Added up, they are conclusive. You cannot treat each one in isolation as "not conclusive"; the evidence is additive and taken as a whole, conclusive. Rd232^talk 01:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we've barely even mentioned the "voice" evidence (cfCoM RFCU). Tarc indicated he might be willing to do a sort of linguistic comparison if necessary; I guess it's necessary. (Though for those most familiar with CoM, it doesn't seem to be.) Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I find it odd that you mention the number of wikistalk overlapping pages when the SPI evidence does not. The SPI evidence is qualitative, not quantitative. Rd232 ^talk 09:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:

fine, then forget the wikistalk part of point 5; it was a lazy way of showing that CoM was aware of RAN's existence, and had some interest overlaps. I should have just relied on CoM's well-known tendency to stick his nose in absolutely everywhere at ANI without obvious need to do so, with the same chorus of "abusive admins". FSN did just that within a few days of account creation, jumping in unprompted to support RAN [32] and Giacomo [33] 2 days later, neither of whom the account had any prior connection with I can see. And the similarity of tone and content (check the diffs) speaks for itself, for those familiar with CoM.
on the milagros thing - "pretty clearly just ran a search and created links" - hardly, not least since he added a link to justone article. Looking at the contribs, FSN had no obvious reason to be searching "milagros" at the time, and it's hardly a typical topic for him. I find it far more likely that he went to Todos (which is a typical topic, just a very obscure page), saw something that needed wikilinking, [34] searched for the appropriate wikilink, and found the need for a hatnote. What particularly clinches this sequence over yours (I hadn't wanted to point out this detail, it's more help for future socking!) is that Todos Santos had its first edit since January (when it was last edited by CoM) on 13 June (3 days before the FSN edit), when an anon removed the wikilink to milagros [35]. In consequence, the page would have appeared on CoM's watchlist as a recently edited page, which I have no doubt CoM was continuing to log in to check. Rd232^talk 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
any particular reason you ignored the Pasco County evidence? Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I'm increasingly astounded at this attitude coming from a fellow admin. Not only have you ignored my expansion on the Todos Santos Chocolates point, but you misread the Pasco County evidence completely. I made no claim that the users werein Pasco County (I said "connection to / interest in", which I guess was a clumsy way of putting it) rather I pointed out that the previous sock (Electroshoxcure) create a Pasco County nature reserve as one of his 7 article creations, and the very first nature reserve article FSN creates is in Pasco County. This is roughly a 3000:1 coincidence even if you assume that all users create nature reserve articles! (Which is clearly untrue, but the probability attached to that is much harder to say anything about.) Basically, Electroshoxcure started the job of expanding coverage of Pasco County nature reserve articles and some weeks later FSN continued it. The likelihood of the Pasco connection being mere coincidence ("I'm gonna create a nature reserve article, don't care where, how about ... there") is further decreased by the creation of several local school article redirects and a geo stub. (Also probability of coincidence can be contextualised by noting that no Pasco nature reserve articles were created between 2006 and 2010, when Electroshoxcure and FSN, plus what is now declared to be a friend of FSN's, contribute.)Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re CoM socking: unless I'm way off base, CoM has given up on the idea of rescuing the FSN account, and is enjoying some disruptive socking. [ Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ChildofMidnight. I findthis particularly nice (though downplaying contributions here from Bigtimepeace seems a mite unfair). Rd232 ^talk01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern: It seems likely to me that FSN has already socked disruptively. User:Overturn_and_censure_Tarc (29 July) andUser:Overturn_deletion_to_censure_Tarc! (29 Aug) are both SPAs for challenging an FSN DRV and attacking Tarc using (in the first instance) language directed by Tarc at FSN at that DRV.[36] FSN listed the same page at DRV twice - with the SPA appearing soon after in each case. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: unless someone wants to argue that these abusive socks mentioned just above (plusthis one who notably didthis) are not in fact FSN (one preceding any blocking of FSN), then there is clear evidence that FSN was heading down a ban path anyway. Rd232 ^talk 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren: "Whether or not that account was under the control of — or associated with — ChildofMidnight is not especially relevant, so I don't think it is useful or necessary to attempt to tie them explicitly at this point." - ?? I think at this point Arbcom needs to make up its mind. Either it collectively thinks (a) FSN=CoM, and such socking, including previous socking and disruptive socking additional to FSN, is sufficient to extend CoM ban to indefinite to minimise cost of dealing with future CoM socking (b) FSN=CoM, but not worth extending the ban other than resetting the clock, which already done (c) FSN is in fact not CoM (or not conclusively so), and some kind of action relating to that conclusion be taken (be it requesting a re-opening of the SPI, taking it to WP:AN, or something else). If Arbcom basically thinks option c is the case but does nothing at all, that is not just. Rd232 ^talk 18:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

This absolutely reeks of an "I don't like you" block, and this request to extend CoM's ban on this weak foundation just looks like petty vindictiveness. I have looked over all the evidence here, and I see no smoking gun at all. Yes, they edited in similar areas, but "food" and "US politics" are hardly obscure fields, and the Wikistalk tool is generally virtually meaningless when one of the editors has a high edit count, as CoM did (I believe I have 20,000 pages in common withJ.delanoy). I see no pattern of problematic edits from the Freakshownerd account—those blocks were all dubious and quickly overturned. While it may be CoM sneaking under the wire, he's not causing any problems if it is, and there's at least a reasonable chance that this is a legitimate new user being hounded off on "edits in a similar way" grounds. Filing a request for checkuser and using the fact that it came back negative as grounds for a block, which certainly appears to be what's happened here, is ABF in the extreme. – iridescent 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232: I really don't see anything there to link CoM and FSN. I've had numerous issues with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) myself in the past (albeit none recently) and am certainly not going to jump to his defense; however, from my previous interactions with him, I know that he does have something of a "fan club" of talkpage watchers (126 of them), and don't find it at all unusual that two different users will jump in to argue his case. I think there's good evidence that FSN isn't a new user, but very little to suggest either that he's COM or that he's anything other than a former user making a clean start or an IP creating an account for the first time. Yes, he may be COM, but it's equally possible that he's not. As I've previously stated, MZMcBride's tool is not a useful tool for sockpuppet investigations (8 pages in commonbetween Freakshownerd and ChildofMidnight; 31 pages in commonbetween Freakshownerd and myself; 647 pages in common between you and me). If he is COM, then leave him until he's either actually caused a problem, or has done something to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they're the same person. If he isn't, then you've just hounded off a legitimate user, and are now lobbying to extend COM's block for something he didn't do.

@Rd232: re "I find it odd that you mention the number of wikistalk overlapping pages when the SPI evidence does not"—the first sentence of point 5 in your evidence—which is supposed to be the clincher, according to your statement above—is "CoM has a high wikistalk overlap (showing strong onwiki relationship) with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )". The overlap between them isarticles, which for two users with high edit counts is utterly unconvincing. Comparing CoM with two random users having a similar number of total edits to Richard's (according to WP:WBE), shows CoM as havingabout the same overlap with Magioladitis and times as much overlap with Can't sleep, clown will eat me. To put that in perspective, my overlap with CoM is 359 pages.

Regarding "There is a very notable wikistalk overlap between Freakshownerd and CoM at a very hard to reach page, outside the main political-interest arena they share: Todos Santos Chocolates was created by CoM", if you look at FSN's editing history for that day, shortly before his sole edit to that page, adding a link to Milagro (votive), he'd madethis edit, so had pretty clearly just ran a search and created links. Honestly, this is all utterly unconvincing; you've decided that the accounts are linked, and are grabbing at any piece of 'evidence', however tenuous, to back it up. It's certainly possible that these accounts are socks, but ifthis is all you have, there's not even a balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. – iridescent 12:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232: Re "any particular reason you ignored the Pasco County evidence?"—yes, because it's ridiculous. Not only is St Petersburg a major metropolitan area (and home, incidentally, to two of our most prolific long-term sockmasters, neither of which is CoM), the idea that "created articles on a place" indicates a connection with the place is ludicrous. In the last couple of months, I've created eight articles on rural Buckinghamshire, but I don't live anywhere near the place, while I've a grand total of zero articles about either the place I do live or the place I'm originally from. "Both accounts worked on Florida-related articles" is right up there with "speaks German in a similar way". – iridescent 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Well, coming back from a weekend bender, I find it a bit bewildering to see this degree of skepticism over the FSN-CoM connections. Read the comment left at User talk:ChildofMidnight#Sockpuppetry case by him; one giant thumbing of the nose at all of us, masquerading as golly-gee-whiz "It's not really me!" innocence. Seriously.

Don't know if I have the time to tonight, but many, many diffs can easily be dug the archives for this page, Arb enforcement, and AN/I of CoM savaging every admin who dares to lift a finger to sanction or block him, or voice support of other admins doing same. Many bad editors do this of course, but there are peculiarities in the tone and the delivery of these tirades, how the circle ever-widens to include more and more people that are "against him". Anyone with a even a passing familiarity with CoM's brand of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-flavored aggression, especially when dealing with unblock requests, should be painfully obvious in FSN's talk page when he's dealing with same. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further observation. Reposting this from AN/I. While not a smoking gun or anything, IMO it is something to consider.
- Another telling clue that I realized recently is Freakshownerd's interactions with myself. We crossed paths at DRV over record label prods several months back, I still had his talk page on watch from commenting there, so a few months later when I noticed some worsening relations between him and WLU, I offered advice on dispute resolution, which heremoved without comment 1 minute later. Obviously anyone can remove any comment they wish from their own talk page, but that is pretty drastic to do to someone with who you presumably have had only brief past contact with. It is something one would do to someone whom they are rather familiar with and have a history with. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heimstern

I'm afraid I must agree with Tarc. It's not really the common editing areas that constitute a smoking gun here, though they are useful as circumstantial evidence to abet the case. It's the discussion comments taking admins to task that really suggest that this is none other than ChildofMidnight. These diffs fit his style like hand in glove. His response on CoM's talk after the accusation was made, in which he addresses (and congratulates!) ChildofMidnight, an editor who was banned before the FSN account was created, rather than addressing the evidence or his accusers, isn't really the sort of behaviour I'd expect from an innocent party, either. Thus, contra Risker and Shell, I must conclude that FSN most likelyis a sock of CoM. And do note that I'm not the type to go out trying to get CoM elimated: after his confirmed socking incident in May, I chose not to reset his block (someone else did) and tried to convince him not to sock again. I'm afraid my attempt failed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must echo Bigtimepeace here and ask why the general lack of useful responses on the part of the arbs. The evidence he has presented is compelling, and yet we still have a rather incomprehensible skepticism on the part of some arbs and even less comprehensible apathy from others. The implication seems to be "so it looks like probably he socked. Meh. Let's not worry about it." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vaguely Involved, but Mostly Just Entertained, PhGustaf

We're not talking about capital punishment here; the criterion is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "by a preponderance of the evidence", and I think Judge Wapner would find against CoM, in whatever guise, in a New York minute. All the same, I see no difference in utility between an updated 1-year block and an indef. PhGustaf (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Bigtimepeace

I'm not very active right now but Tarc directed me to this situation, I guess because I know as much as anyone about ChildofMidnight's "style" through frequent interaction and even more so through looking at many, many diffs when preparing his user conduct RfC. Given some of the evidence already presented and looking at a few things myself, I would bet a significant amount of money that Freakshownerd is ChildofMidnight. Of course I could be wrong, but I would be pretty astonished if these were different people. The IP information is different--which could have multiple explanations--but all of the "duck" type evidence looks and sounds like C of M. Let me just mention two specific things in some detail.

One example of language similarity, already mentioned above. This is really a textbook ChildofMidnight type statement, and no other editor comes to mind who writes quite like this. First, it uses the "shame on so and so" phrasing (as in[37] and[38]) which was a common tactic of C of M. Also the reference to "abuse" was incredibly common for C of M and not, I think, so much for the rest of us (e.g. [39]and [40], but there are dozens of similar examples). The comment demonstrates an affinity for the uncommon term "grotesque," which seems to be seldom used the way C of M uses it, i.e describing the behavior of other editors as "grotesque" (seehere--two instances, and it also includes the regularly used C of M term "outrageous"--plus [41] [42] [43]). C of M had a very unique "voice" when he was angry and the traits included listing out names of "offenders" and using a canned set of terms to indicate outrage and injustice (abuse, vile, outrageous, grotesque, harassment, sick, bullying, etc.). I'm quite certain that if I had read the linked comment from Freakshownerd cold without having any idea who wrote it and with the user info removed, I would have quickly said, "that's ChildofMidnight." I know this is impressionistic "evidence," but I am pretty familiar with how this editor writes, and I just don't have the time or inclination to do a full blown linguistic analysis.

One other point I stumbled across because I remembered an earlier reference to it. Freakshownerd made a smalledit to Jonnycake, an article which is neither particularly heavily edited nor viewed. A lot of work was done on this article by User:Drmies, a Wiki friend of C of M's (I should point out that I've never seen anything problematic from Drmies, seems to be an excellent editor). Drmies actually told C of M about this work, saying "Come on over for some Jonnycakes tomorrow. With Tedder's help I'm trying to turn it into a GA." This was one of the few messages posted on C of M's talk page after the ArbCom case concluded to which he responded, so he was one of the few Wikipedians (and possibly one of the few humans) who had Johnnycakes on the mind at some point in the last few months. It's telling, to me at least, that one of C of M's closest Wiki friends would improve an obscure food article, tell C of M about it while the latter was banned, and that a few months later a fairly new account who sounds and edits like C of M would show up to edit there.

Along with the other common interests between the two accounts (and, yes, a strong interest in quirky food topics and hot button American political issues, from the perspective of a conservative, is not a common profile among prolific content contributors), the overall stylistic similarity points strongly to ChildofMidnight and no one else I can think of (this is clearly a returning editor, I assume we can all agree on that). It's surprising to me that Shell could suggest that it's "rather unlikely that this user is CoM." At the very least, it's pretty likely—there are just too many similarities here.

That said I have no brilliant suggestions about what to do, assuming I'm correct. While I found C of M's editing pattern atrocious, I argued pretty strongly against blocking him for a year, preferring a lesser remedy. In part this was because I thought it was worth trying but also because I thought there was a good chance C of M would sock and would be harder to keep track of once he did. That's happened at least once and quite likely twice now. Banning indefinitely and/or resetting the block again won't do much to change that. Assuming Freakshownerd is C of M, he's willing to have a lot of us waste time by failing to 'fess up, so I don't think the future looks very encouraging. Maybe we should just leave things as they are unless the committee or a discussion on a noticeboard determines that Freakshownerd should not have been blocked as a sock. I think the block was warranted, though probably the SPI case should have stayed open longer. --Bigtimepeace |talk | contribs 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things which to me almost add up to "case closed." First, Freakshownerd shows the same tendency torun over to Jimbo that ChildofMidnight did (I could find evidence of this tendency by C of M, but he did it over and over again which is I think is well known). Freakshownerd also recently engaged inheated argument on Jimbo's page (also like C of M). As you can see from FSN's 18:55 August 9th comment there the issue that was brought up was climate change, not really related to the topic, when FSN says "Has Arbcom acted yet to rein in the POV pushing fanatics of the Climate Cabal, who have clear COIs and hold Wikipedia's NPOV policy in disdain and want only their personal views represented?" That is again textbook C of M speak for his problems with the climate articles and with certain editors there (some context for that isherefrom the Arb case, but I'm sure that phrasing sounds familiar to everyone on the committee).

And one other specific point I noticed, again after a very cursory inspection of some edits. ChildofMidnight would sometimes create what I could only describe as "oddly general" or maybe "vaguely unencyclopedic" articles—the kind of thing that both seemed like a topic but not exactly, and which could not be expanded much. Examples would include Immediacy (philosophy),Religious values, and User:ChildofMidnight/vegetarian diet (the last was redirected to vegetarianism apparently). Upon registering FSN promptly created similar articles (now redirects) with Common language and Right (ethics). They also edited the articles Conscience, Moral compass, and Ethics. If you look at C of M'slast 50 edits you'll notice a string of edits (actually the last article edits excepting one to Häagen-Dazs) to the Morality article. So C of M finished with some edits about morality, and within a day or two of creating an account FSN is editing the article on conscience and creating one on "right" in the ethical sense. To say that this is mere coincidence beggars belief.

Overall this passes the duck test, if we still use the duck test. C of M and Freakshownerd share all of the following attributes: pretty heavy editing; interest in contemporary political controversies in the U.S. from a conservative perspective (this Barack Obama talk page diff is also highly reminiscent of C of M); interest in more obscure food-related topics; a tendency to make general edits related to morality or ethics; a tendency to create what could be described as "very general" articles; a tendency to create a lot of articles period; an interest in nature preserves in one particular part of Florida (iridescent is completely wrong about this point in my view—it's a significant piece of data taken along with everything else); edit made on Todos Santos Chocolates; intense anger over the global warming articles; a tendency to "appeal to Jimbo" and to argue at length with others on Jimbo's talk page (really, most people don't do that); a tendency to get angry with people who disagree with them and not listen to what they have to say very well (see User_talk:Freakshownerd#Civility_reminder for an FSN example); a tendency to lash out in a personal fashion when they do get angry and, more importantly, a tendency to use certain words and phrasings that are quite unique when they do so. Add to that that "Jonnycakes" bit mentioned above, and the simple fact that the FSN account was created two weeks after C of M's previous sock was blocked and I think we can be about 98% sure what is going on here.

And it does matter whether this is a C of M sock or not, because given the Checkuser data he's either moved or is spoofing an IP or something (or whatever the hell it's called). I'm open to contrary evidence to that which has already been provided, but I think further digging would only strengthen the case, because I've seen nothing to suggest that these are not the same two editors, and numerous items which indicate they are. --Bigtimepeace |talk | contribs 04:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Carcharoth: sorry for crossing WP:BEANS, which I certainly thought about, but I'm not sure what else you would have had me to do (and bringing up WP:BEANS in the specific way you do is actually a good example of WP:BEANS on two fronts, ironically, as you actually made direct allusions to possible behavior). The socking was pretty obvious, I think, and a good amount of evidence had already been provided, but you and several other Arbs were not really buying it, frankly because I don't think you are as familiar with C of M as the people who worked on the SPI case. I considered e-mailing some of what I found to the committee, but I don't think that's fair because folks should not be "convicted" behind closed doors without understanding the evidence against them, even if that does reveal "investigative methods" and the like. You said you agreed with Risker when she found "the circumstantial evidence borderline at best," but when more was provided it was suddenly too much. Hard to know what you were looking for, and since the committee seemed on the verge of calling to undo the block of what seemed to me to be an obviously abusive sockpuppet I laid out a more detailed case. Had the Arb comments roughly followed Rlevse's initial response I would not mentioned any specific details.

As to your suggestions for how to proceed, they don't really make sense to me, though it may just be the wording. You say it's better "to wait for more evidence and to act on sanctionable conduct by the account independent of socking accusations." Well, Freakshownerd is blocked indefinitely, are you saying they should be unblocked, and then wait and see what happens, or just that that is what should have happened? Surely you noticed that the FSN account already was behaving in a not-so-great, sanctionable manner (e.g. this blog log, not to mention a slew of personal attacks). Also you make reference to ChildofMidnight appealing an indefinite block, but that editor is not blocked indefinitely, the block was merely reset. I think we should just leave things as they are now, but maybe you don't disagree.

It seems to me it was a mistake to bring this to the committee to consider an indefinite block/ban, because what was basically dealt with suddenly became un-dealt with. Color me confused by the reluctance to say, "this is clearly a sock of C of M" and by the suggestion that we shouldn't even worry about the socking per say but just the behavior of the new account. ChildofMidnight was enormously disruptive and has already socked before. We have a pretty strong interest in sussing out any C of M socks before they spend weeks disrupting multiple parts of the project the way C of M did. To respond, "well, I don't know if it's a sock or not, but let's just wait and see if something bad happens" seems foolish to me—the disruption already occurred, the socking evidence is quite strong, and here we are wasting time talking about it. Part of why I didn't care for the ban remedy for ChildofMidnight is that I felt it would likely encourage sockpuppetry, which it indeed has, as opposed to a restriction that would make it easier to see what C of M was doing on the account we knew while severely constraining his ability to edit. We ended up with problematic socking (which no doubt will continue—ChildofMidnight cannot quit editing apparently), and now the committee seems almost blase about it. In a way I'm sorry I even bothered to weigh in here, but y'all can deal with this going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by / question from Bongomatic

The arbitrators who have opined so far certainly do not indicate that there is a consensus to indef or reset the clock. However,SchuminWeb ~~did just that~~unilaterally (as far as I know) reset the clock. On what authority does an individual admin have to—contrary to CU results and consensus, and in the absence of AC conclusions—undertake such an action?^Bongo_matic 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth—thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Hope the above will assure others don't get the wrong impression.^Bongo_matic 02:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fences and windows

The connection between CoM and Freakshownerd is blindingly obvious, especially after all the behavioural evidence has been laid out on a plate. I wonder at the analytical abilities of the arbitrators who aren't seeing it. Fences&Windows 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, please give the arbitrators who commented earlier on time to review the evidence added after they made their comments. I was convinced by the later evidence, perhaps they will be too. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FanOfBackyard

What if...FSO is an impostor? Someone who is playing games with the Amateur Detective Squad. It is not very difficult to mimic COM's behavior. As I see it, the more eccentric the editor, the easier it is to impersonate. Guaranteed: FSO is A) a sock or B) an impostor trolling COM's foes. Leave the FSO account blocked and end it. Worst that can happen is that COM was socking and got away with a some edits, no harm done. On the other hand, punish COM for something he might not have done...and you have a serious injustice. An expert on the whole affair is Baseball Bugs, unfortunately his knowledge of COM and impostors is sidelined by a topic ban. Oh, and the "Beans" thing, bad move. If COM was socking, he is now taking notes. Think about it, I have to go now. FanOfBackyard (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LadyofShalott

I'm not sure if this is the best way to raise this, but... FSN has a question regarding these proceedings and his/her block. As I think it is probably best addressed by the Arbitrators, I said I would point people to the question: User talk:Freakshownerd#Question regarding Arbcom and block. LadyofShalott 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Spartaz

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Freakshownerd Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

ArbCom does not hand down indefinite bans, but an indefinite community ban is unquestionably in place; it is extremely unlikely that CoM will find any administrator willing to unblock. ArbCom has done its job in impartially reviewing the original problems, the community has done its job in deciding to indefinitely ban (as is usual in such cases) someone who has engaged in systematic block evasion. ArbCom has always, it seems to me, allowed for the possibility of redemption. I think that's a good thing.Guy (Help!) 07:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Note that the ban was reset in May, when the last sock was identified. NW (Talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Support indef. Feel free to indef COM as far as I'm concerned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite unimpressed that Freakshownerd (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs). The checkuser evidence contradicts such a finding, and I find the circumstantial evidence borderline at best, to the point that I would say if you don't have grounds to block Freakshownerd independent of the alleged sockpuppetry, then you don't have grounds to block him. I don't mind the idea of resetting CoM's block to a year from the last confirmed sock, which I believe is Electroshoxcure, but I'm not convinced Freakshownerd is a CoM sock so I cannot support a change to indefinite ban based on what is presented here.Risker (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to return to this: Checkuser data cannot prove that two accounts are *not* operated by the same person, but can raise a level of doubt that is sometimes almost impossible to overcome, and this is one of those situations. There is no checkuser similarity between Freakshownerd and CoM, and very significant differences are present. As to the issue of "behavioural evidence", simply put I can build an equally strong case for at least four other accounts being CoM socks (they aren't), and for this account to be a sock of at least two other indefinitely blocked accounts (it isn't).
It is time to get back to what this project is about. Editing should be done with the sole intent of creating and improving content, not to provoke other editors or to try and draw out "socks". The enormous amount of time and energy that's been devoted to trying to link Freakshownerd and CoM indicates to me that once again we are seeing far too much attention paid to "social" issues that do not have a genuine effect on the growth and improvement of the project. Consider this a wake-up call, folks; this sort of administrative behaviour in the past led to at least as much disruption to the project as did the socking it was supposed to be addressing. If an account is consistently behaving outside of the behavioural rules of this project, it should be addressed in the usual manner; if it is not, then spending days and weeks to build a "case" against it can be every bit as harmful as anything that account is doing.Risker (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Risker, though I would actually like to hear from Freakshownerd (who should have been given a chance to comment at the SPI page as well). But that is not really a matter for this page. I suggest resetting the ban for CoM from the last confirmed sock, and continuing discussion elsewhere as to whether Freakshownerd is actually a sock of CoM. Carcharoth(talk) 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating here to say that Bigtimepeace's evidence is more convincing, but it should be pointed out that going into such detail allows: (a) others to imitate CoM if they wanted to do so; (b) allows CoM to avoid such behaviourisms in future. This is why going into such detail is not best practice (per WP:BEANS), but too late for that now. It is better, if there is no abuse from the suspected socking account, to wait for more evidence and to act on sanctionable conduct by the account independent of socking accusations (as Coren has also said below). ~~Regarding the indefinite block placed, CoM may appeal that to the arbitration committee.~~ Indeed, Freakshownerd is also welcome to appeal any block to the arbitration committee. In such cases, being honest about what has happened will help. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further update, in response to Bigtimepeace: I was indeed talking about what should (maybe) have happened (i.e. block for the poor behaviour without even needing to bring up a sock case - sometimes people focus too much on difficult-to-prove socking and not on pulling up accounts on other conduct issues), but what is done is done. The danger of convicting on too-thin behavioural evidence is very real. In general, people do hold different standards for what passes a behavioural (or "duck") test, and it would be better if the generalities of such criteria were standardised. It does no good for such matters to become arcane arts with only a few experienced people willing to dig deep in difficult cases, and neither does it do any good if standards drop and anyone can be accused (and convicted) of WP:DUCK-like behaviour on a whim (none of this is directed at you, Bigtimepeace, but is a more general comment). How to balance proper discussion of WP:DUCK cases with WP:BEANS, I'm not sure. It is normally done off-wiki in complex cases, but, as Bigtimepeace says, there are good reasons for transparency as well. About the CoM block, I assumed from what Bongomatic said ("SchuminWeb did just that") that it had been set to indefinite. But I should have checked, and I see I was wrong and Bongomatic's statement could be interpreted in either of two ways and I interpreted it the wrong way. I've struck what I said, but as I said, any blocked accounts are always free to appeal to ArbCom. Carcharoth(talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing evidence; awaiting any potential response to the request I just made on Freakshownerd's talkpage.Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that I need to return to this and review the new evidence; I've been focusing on the Climate change case with my arb time this week, but will carve out time to look at this shortly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a procedural matter, the Committee does not normally issue indefinite bans under such circumstances. If a banned user violates their ban, the normal course of action is simply to reset their ban; there is no need to have us modify the original remedy. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my review, it appears rather unlikely that this user is CoM. Waiting to see if there's a response to Brad's comments though. Shell ^babelfish 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm not convinced either way. Some of the behavioral evidence is convincing (Bigtimepeace's in particular makes me pause), but some of it is a little off and not that convincing. Given that the technical side of things gives us no help, would it not be simpler to handle the Freakshownerd account on its own merit and simply not bother trying to link it to CoM? If he's socking, it will become obvious in time; either way there is no need for a specific account to be tied to him now. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Freakshownerd account has been dealt with through the normal community process. Whether or not that account was under the control of — or associated with — ChildofMidnight is not especially relevant, so I don't think it is useful or necessary to attempt to tie them explicitly at this point. — Coren ^(talk) 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: ChildofMidnight

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 02:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: ChildofMidnight arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 3: ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

CoM

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight
Permit CoM to edit filespace and file talkspace, and permit him to discuss Nyttend at discussion pages other than his own talk page.

Statement by Nyttend

Before CoM was banned, we were working rather productively together on issues totally unrelated to the reasons that he was banned, primarily historic architecture in Ohio. If he ever stops socking, reaches the end of his ban, and decides to return and be productive, I'd like to ask that he be allowed to edit filespace and file talkspace, and that he be allowed to discuss me on any discussion page; it would be more convenient if he wanted to discuss edits that I had recently performed or ask that I perform others, and before he was banned, he had uploaded plenty of useful free images of historic Ohio architecture. None of his interactions contained anything for which he was banned/warned/etc., except for the occasional comment about other editors' behavior, and I do not ask for any lifting of his restrictions on discussing other users. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptre

I'd generally oppose for the meanwhile, as his last violation of the arbcom remedies was only six weeks ago. I reckon he should wait until around Christmas to appeal. In any case, mentorship lasting three to six months (up until the expiry of the original ban) may be a good idea on top of this. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he's not appealing; I am. Are you suggesting that I'm another sock? Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; I assumed this was an appeal posted on behalf of him, as appeals with no input from the banned user on Arb/Amendment are/were rather rare, and they tend not to pass even when they happen. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The last time that I heard anything from him at all was when he was socking in April, and I didn't realise that it was he until quite a while later. I've not heard anything that I knew to be from CoM or done anything on his behalf since the ban was enacted. I made this request because the restrictions will make my work a little less convenient if he ever stops socking and comes to the end of his ban, since his comments on my edits were very helpful. I thought that this proposal would be acceptable simply because the I, as the one making the request, would be the only one directly affected by it, other than him. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

I was saddened to see CoM banned, but I accept it was inevitable. My own interactions with him – when he first started editing – were never anything short of courteous and often productive (despite our diametrically opposed political views), so I know he has the potential to be a useful contributor. I believe Nyttend hopes that CoM could be persuaded to concentrate on his productive abilities, and I understand this request in the spirit of encouraging that and discouraging further socking. I'd ask the Arbs to consider that if CoM were to see that there are editors here who would like to work with him again (and this request is a clear indication of that), then it is possible he may give up whatever pleasure he derives from socking and resolve to wait out his ban. Surely, it is worth offering to relax this particular sanction in the way that Nyttend requests, if only because it sends the right signals to someone whom we believe could be a useful contributor again? --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

I'd be willing to offer the Standard Offer, but that requires six months away. Right now, we're at six WEEKS. It's not going to happen, at least now. SirFozzie (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my inexperience with arbitration and bans and that kind of thing, but how is Wikipedia:Standard offer relevant here? I read that page as something for the banned user, not for other people like me, and as guidance for making a request for removing the ban altogether. Since I'm not asking for the ban to be lifted or shortened or anything like that, and since the behavior I'd like to see permitted was totally unrelated to the behavior that led to the ban, I can't understand why you reference that page. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be a reasonable relaxation of the secondary restrictions, but I don't think there's any need for us to make a decision while ChildofMidnight is still banned (and likely to be for the foreseeable future). Please make this request if or when he actually returns from his ban; we'll be in a better position to evaluate the situation at that point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for taking everyone's time; I didn't know that permanent elements of bans weren't discussed when the subjects were serving temporary sitebans. If he ever reaches the end of the ban, I'll try to remember to re-propose this relaxation of remedies. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is probably not the best time to discuss the suggestion Nyttend has raised, but I appreciate Nyttend's thoughts about how, in due course, we might best gain the benefits of this editor's productive aspects while minimizing the problematic ones. Ultimately, however, what will be required (apart from the passage of some time) for ChildofMidnight to become a productive editor will be sincere and successful efforts by him to change the behavior that led to his being banned in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking request

I would like to request unblocking this account, the year is over and although there have been extensions added to the year, the evidence of sock-puppetry is weak and pretty much unconfirmed. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the Daleks account's very purpose was to try to get the ban extended, by openly claiming to be a sock. Often, when someone is overly eager to admit to socking, they're impostors trying to get the blocked editor into further trouble. I can't prove that's the case here, I only suspect it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see looking at the case records for the sockpuppet claims - there has never been actual confirmation via checkuser. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive

Not all checkuser cases are done out in the open. Meanwhile, I have asked a checkuser whether there's a chance for an SPI or if the trail is cold by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Time flies when you are having fun, the year is over, so we could show a little good faith and and unblock the account with a couple of editing restrictions - user is unable to comment on pages like ANI and should not return to previous disputes and whatever, and perhaps a mentor for a three month period, as I remember there was a side to the users contributions that was beneficial and constructive. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be facts that the checkusers know that they are reluctant to state openly due to the risk of giving the "perp" too much information. Due to the interaction ban, I can't comment on whether he should have the block lifted and under what conditions. I do recall, as you're also saying, that he was a good editor for certain topics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was questioned about it on my user talk page, I just wanted to clarify that my recent block of Enemy of the Daleks (talk · contribs) was due to the behavior of that account and its self-proclaimed status as an alternate account of CoM, not due to any SPI evidence. It is entirely possible that that account belongs to another editor trying cause trouble for CoM; I have no evidence one way or another on that. --RL0919 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no apparent checkuser confirmation I have altered the template on Coms userpage to reflect that - The only sockpuppet that seems to have a degree of consensus support through contributions is Electroshure whose last edit was May 4th. The one year ban was altered for that and was then a bit controversially further extended for the user freakshownerd, although there was never consensus the that account was actually CoM. IMO - all of the socking claims against user Com are a bit dubious and I don't see good reason to further continuing extending this one year for dubious sock puppet claims that no checkuser request has ever confirmed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this may be tied to myself, unfortunately...for what it's worth, a user by name of -DS- on the Wikipedia Review has been in touch with me to claim that he is my recent talk/user-page vandal, and to mock my suggestion that it is CoM. Whether it is or isn't is hard to say without an SPI/CU, but honestly it seems rather likely given the possibilities. I have had a direct or major hand in getting 3 people kicked off the project over the years...Grundle2600, Zeq, and him. Grundle is rather too good-natured to do all of this, Zeq had such a poor grasp of English as to be almost functionally illiterate, so it really only leaves 1 likely suspect. So, a CU including some of the redlink names in my talk page history might net sme interesting results. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about past incidents, but a checkuser result identified the Enemy of the Daleks account as belonging to a different banned user, so the block log for that account has been updated and I've removed the incident from CoM's AE log. Whatever he may have done in the past, this latest incident should not be held against CoM. --RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]