User talk:ChildofMidnight

I will not now or ever remain silent in the face of attacks on Wikipedia's integrity, including the censorship of minority perspectives in violation of our core neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) policy, and the attempted intimidation and harassment of editors holding minority viewpoints. Some things are worth fighting for, and I will never kowtow to ignorance and bias or the thugs that advance them as a righteous cause.

"I would find it impossible to just sit back and watch the blatant injustice without doing something about it. I'd have reversed that block immediately and blocked the blocking admin for 24 hours, until he'd sobered up." -common sense (uncommon on Wikipedia)

Travesty in motion: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Proposed decision. Wikipedia's arbcom is in the process of dishing out heavy punishments to good faith editors who have faced the wall of incivility and NPOV violating POV pushers camped out on the Obama articles. Despite many efforts to discuss the issue and present alternatives for resolving it, Wizardman and the other Arbcoms appear ready to reinforce and encourage the incivility, obstruction, wikilawyering, and harassment carried out by those calling themselves "defenders" and "patrollers" on these pages. This is a dark time for Wikipedia when bias is encouraged and the censors are rewarded for their efforts. If you're opposed to Arbcom spitting on our core policy of NPOV please contact them and let them know that punishing the good faith efforts of editors facing severe challenges in addressing this problem is the height of bad form and totally unacceptable.

Delete all content that I think is boring or that can be obtained from other sources. But keep both the articles that remain. {&nbsp} — One of Wikipedia's Wise Men

• Please leave your flattering comments and appreciation for my good work at the bottom of the page.
• To discuss issues on this page, please refer to the associated talk page.
• Read about the Kelapstick Bacon Challenge 2009 or get an early start on the 2010 Bacon Challenge coming up in December, 2009 as a giant Christmas present to all of Wikipedia that will be unwrapped March 1, 2010 for National Pig Day!

It was about time you had one of these

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For special merits in Dragon breeding.

Thanks

Thank you ever so much,have fun as well Secthayrabe (talk)

Putting this here for now since I can't edit my userpage at the moment. Maybe once Connolley sobers up?

References

The Dutch don't need no stinking references!

For later

• Tomas Gabzdil Libertiny ref name="" Rosecrans Baldwin April 23, 2009

The Digital Ramble | Furniture Design New York Times blog /ref

• AE statement

Possibly unfree File:Candy dots as art.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Candy dots as art.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

DYK for Nói Síríus

On July 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nói Síríus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Oranges

On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Oranges, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I posted a question about the extent of your Obama-related topic ban. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Violation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=304772552) of topic ban (WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#ChildofMidnight_topic_banned) on Arrest of Henry Louis Gates; block per 12.4.1. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Aitias // discussion 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note In case this user requests to be unblocked the reviewing administrator should read this as well. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe after your block ends, you can go back to making the great kinds of edits on food, animal, science, and technology articles that you are so good at doing! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This was an indisputably marginal (and wrong, in my view) block, but given the quantum of news coverage about the event that involves Obama, you can (even if you disagree) see the rationale. Probably better to avoid this sort of thing. The (probably unintentionally) condescending notion that your capabilities are limited by topic category is wrong. Bongomatic 01:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The blocking administrator ought to have been desysopped some time ago IMO, and may well have been had he not opted to take a short "retirement" rather than face the music at RfC a few months ago. Still, just the way it is here at wikipedia; administrators are always right, even when they're wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind and considerate comments gents. Much appreciated.

Yes, it's a very bad, abusive and disruptive block. I'm happy to avoid those two articles and perhaps I should have realized that they were connected (albeit indirectly) enough to Obama to raise eyebrows. I didn't. My interest was in the racial and policing issues, as my edits show, and I was trying to keep the articles somewhat clean and NPOV, as my edits show.

The name of the caller should be omitted as a BLP violation.

Regarding the smears and inaccuracies stated by the trolls and stalkers who have pushed for and enforced this block against me, it should be pointed out that the edit where I actually touched some Obama content simply moved it. So no, I didn't even consider whether it was appropriate in relation to any editing restrictions, only that it seemed to me like a very good idea to streamline the article.

I took the mass of Obama related mentions from the opening paragraphs of the article, where they don't belong, and moved them into the appropriate section. That's it. So allegations of POV pushing are greatly exagerated. :)

The incivility and personal attacks against me by Arcayne and Bugs speak for themselves, as does the incompetent, abusive and disruptive actions of Aitias.

The insinuation that I was distorting the bit about "two black men" was a mistake on my part that I didn't get a chance to fix. I was trying to take that bit out entirely from that part of the article, and actually thought I had, but I didn't get a chance to finish as it was reverted moments after I made the edit. The significance of race in that bit is unclear and it stands out to me as race baiting. So I was working to restate the sentence in a coherent fashion about the facts of the case. As is sometimes the case it takes me more than one edit to get the job done, and I didn't get a chance to finish as I was reverted by Arcayne moments after my initial edit, which only addressed the first part of the sentence where I was trying to avoid the neighbor/ witness/ old lady who asked another person to call intrigue (that I think is unhelpful and unencyclopedic). But I hadn't yet removed the irrelevant and complicated by dispute portion relating to the race of the persons seen at the house (and indeed the caller wasn't sure and the police report says they were black, all of which seems irrelevant and if it's included should be included as an inconsistency rather than in the historical section of the events as they happened).

So from the original: "According to the police report the caller notified police after observing "two black males with backpacks" on the front porch, one of whom was wedging his shoulder into the door as though to force entry."

I was trying to formulate would have read something along the lines of: "A caller to the police reported two males trying to enter the house." This seemed more neutral and didn't get into any of the disputed or unwarranted bits that should be dealt with in their own right if at all. I also like wording that is concise and to the point without all the intrigue and insinuation attempts promoted by the two sides of the dispute.

Anyway, the bottom line on all of this is that a simple courteous "Hey, I'm not sure if you realized it, but I think the Gates articles fall under the topic ban" would have sufficed. But civility, competence and courtesy mean different things to different people. :)

I edits lots of articles in a a given day, and I move about from things that interest me, to things that pop up on my watchlist, to things that are on the news or in magazines and periodicals I'm reading. So it's entirely possible that some day in the future I may edit an article that has some relation to Barack Obama. If someone has a concern it would be most helpful if they would just let me know with a nice note. (The trolling and stalking of the complainer in this case speaks for itself as far as their intentions and good will).

• Kudos to those who actually respected our assume good faith and civility guidelines in this case and who had the wisdom, common sense, and decency to suggest restraint and discussion as a first option. How amazing that not once did those involved in blocking me ask for or give me a chance to offer my input. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Per your above comment, I have unblocked you. Given that you have said you will avoid Arrest of Henry Louis Gates and similar articles I see no reason to keep this block in effect, particularly since objections to it were raised on ANI. Two other points though: 1) Parts of your comments do not do you credit, as you cast aspersions on other editors unnecessarily using words like "abusive," "trolling," and "stalking." It's understandable that you're upset and annoyed by the situation, but those kind of comments obviously don't help your case. 2) In the future, you should very much err heavily on the side of caution with respect to topics that might fall under the ban restriction. If it even seems remotely related to Obama don't get involved, or at least ask first. Obviously some things might be up for interpretation, but the Gates thing was actually fairly clear cut (for example when you moved text that actually discussed Obama, though you did not write it). As I said on ANI I have no doubt that you were editing there in good faith, but it is basically up to you to hold to your ArbCom restrictions, and if you cross the line you risk a block. If you edit something and then realize it probably falls under the topic ban, just undo yourself and I doubt anyone will make a thing of it.

I think we should try to put this past us now and move on. Happy editing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Very kind of you BTP. I thought your comments and those of a few other editors/admins were quite well reasoned and appropriate in the ANI discussion, which was interesting to follow. Those who offered encouragement here on my talk page were also very kind and generous to do so. An unexpected block out of right field when someone has been editing in good faith with only good intentions can be quite demoralizing.

I would like to clarify some things.

1) As far as your "not being one of my favorite admins", nothing could be further from the truth. I like all well meaning and good faith editors of which you are certainly one. My point, which I've tried to be consistent on, is that you have a strong point of view politically and that from what I've seen you would do well to restrain from administrative actions towards editors who are editing from a point of view at odds with your own, because from what I've seen I think you have difficulty seeing good faith and the reasoning behind their editing, just as they have difficulty seeing and relating to some of the liberal positions advanced (more commonly) by many editors here. I've disagreed with many of those who are my closest friends on Wikipedia, and I think it's important to be able to be open and honest in disagreement, while maintaining respect for one another. I apologize if I haven't done a good job of expressing that to you in the past, I thought I had.

2) You are always welcome on my talk page and I encourage courteous comments and suggestions offered in good faith. What I've objected to are threats and intimidation. If you treat me respectfully as a fellow editor, I know we won't have any problem. And as my edits are generally straight down the middle I don't anticipate any problems on political subjects either. But where I've tried to abide by our NPOV guidelines and to include perspectives that are notable and critical of Obama and his policies I have found you to be influenced by your personal beliefs, which is understandable, but I don't think makes you the best editors to play the role of enforcer.

3) The actions of trolls and stalkers speak for themselves. When I've made it clear to an individual that I don't find their comments helpful or informative and they continue to post incessantly on my talk page, to involve themselves in my discussions on other editors' talk pages, to engage in discussion about me on other editors pages, and to pursue administrative actions against me at every opportunity, I think pointing out their pond scum like qualities is not only fair, but appropriate. Those descriptive terms are also accurate in describing characters that don't appear to make any useful or helpful contributions to Wikipedia's content. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm following BTP around here like a little puppy dog - but, yep ... what he said. ;) — Ched :  ?  04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm following you Ched! Seems wrong somehow.  :-)

I don't want to rehash our past disagreements C of M so I'll let your first point go, but obviously we know where the disagreement lies. As to the "trolls" type comments, I'm just telling you they don't do you any favors in a situation like this, and there's simply no need for them, but ultimately you will say what you want to say, of course. Also I would not hesitate to contact you on your talk page if I needed to, the only reason I commented on ANI that it would be better for another admin to ask you to not edit the articles in question was that I had specifically told you I would avoid enforcing ArbCom remedies against you, since you were uncomfortable with me doing that. Dropping a note on your talk page is not exactly enforcing a remedy, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. Anyhow, hopefully this is all resolved now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure we agree on where the disagreement lies. 2) Understood. 3) I still seem to be blocked. :) You could ask Ched to help, but I'm not sure I want end up indefinitely blocked or maimed by some sort of horrific administrative mishap. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed autoblock cleared. –xeno^talk 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, you beat me to it. I forgot about the damn autoblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to forget until they installed a helpful reminder for dum dums like us into the {{unblocked}} template =) –xeno^talk 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is helpful, now if I had only used the unblock template! My informality will be my undoing someday, perhaps on Wikipedia but more likely in real life.  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ched isn't mad at me now is he? It was just a joke. You know, hazing the noob admin. Gulp. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ched mad? Pfft ... at words on a webpage? Shirley you jest. Anger is a poor bedfellow I believe. I'll admit, there are times I'm disappointed, but it's usually because I'm hurt when I see people I respect discussed in an insulting manner. Grudges make poor companions Child, and while you still have many supporters, I believe that if you continue speak of our fellow editors in a disparaging manner, the number of supporters will dwindle over time. You're capable of good work here, but good work is easily tainted by vitriol. I'm sure you don't want to read my words of advice any more than anyone else who has tried, so I'll just wish you the best. I trust the "gulp" was intended as humor, but rest assured that I'm not personally offended. ;-) — Ched :  ?  16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the gnat to which you refer has continued to bug me. There's obviously no need to pursue and stalk me around Wikipedia looking for trouble. You don't see all of the edits because I can't be bothered to point them out, but a nuisance is a nuisance. It's nice that you want to believe the best in your fellow editors. But when an individual shows they are here to cause disruption and are incapable of contributing usefully, I don't see any need to mince words. I'm glad you weren't annoyed with my attempt at humor directed your way. It was hilarious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hof's Hut

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hof's Hut, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pink Dot

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pink Dot, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No More BS

Design for a advanced WiFi antenna offered in humble tribute to the presumptive Sultan of Wikipedia by the grateful citizens of the Ashburnham republic

Micronation relations can wait. I have just finished a huge, tedious overhaul of the "Foreign relations of ..." articles, and they have enough fantasy to last me for months. "Saudi-Japanese relations are based on mutual respect and common interests in all areas." "The United States has promoted national reconciliation, encouraging Nicaraguans to resolve their problems through dialogue and compromise." Enough! I will do some dull but uncontroversial articles like Ethiopia–People's Republic of China relations while I recover my sanity. You might give it a try. Take a break from the Obama wars. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even allowed to mention any subjects that start with the letter O. It's outrageous. I mean ridiculous. Oops. I mean uhoh. Wait that has an "Oh" in it too. I'm finding this very difficult. And hasn't Obama commented on Saudi Arabia and China? It's a slippery slope. Thank goodness there are diligent and vigilant editors constantly looking out to make sure the I'm kept on the straight and narrow.

The best political relations article was Iceland-Korea, but some ne'er do well mucked it up entirely. All it takes is one trouble maker to undo lots of hard work.

When I was in Brunei they had an entire museum devoted to the gifts of tribute the Sultan had received from the leaders of other nations and various dignitaries. I'm hoping to become a Sultan of Wikipedia. What are you bringing me? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and there was an entire segment on China's investments and expatriates in Angola. So if you're working on that relations article let me know and I'll find it for you. Interesting stuff. Unless you're Tibetan or a Uighyer (sp?) or some kind of activist it's all good... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Better stay away from Kenya – United States relations - dangerous there. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gulp. The so-called birthers are everywhere... I'm not hearing much about Africa in the news these days. Not since the pirates.

Anyway, I'm mostly interested in U.S. relations with Vietnam. Improving bilateral trade as it relates to improving my access to pho and banh is very important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that Wikipedia already has its god-king? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Aymatth2 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we can still edit the food "things we eat" articles together. ;) ... awww come-on now ... that was funny. :-O — Ched :  ?  03:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... ummm... Don't quit your day job. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL .. I guess Letterman isn't gonna start sweating yet then? ;) — Ched :  ?  05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Have one of these, my treat!

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility in ANI thread

This comment [1], specifically the "More mature and respectful parties" comment, did not help civility here.

Please don't poke the bears. The section needing collapse was self-evident. Getting nasty back at Roux was not productive.

I've already warned Roux on his talk page, but I want to remind everyone involved not to behave in a hostile manner, particularly on ANI. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems valid to me. Everybody's a critic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for pocket neighborhood

On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pocket neighborhood, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary question

"Why isn't Baptisia arachnifera getting a work up on the beach?" It will - if you look at the times of my work, you'll see I was up way too late last night working on the Duncans. I do have to sleep sometime. Did you see my new article already in mainspace? LadyofShalott 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LadyofShalott/Baptisia arachnifera LadyofShalott 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That article is looking very good. I'll see if I can find anything to tweak. Sleep must come second to completing the sum of all knowledge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Martin's BBQ

Hum..., Yes, I would say that they deserve an article, but not the current one in Wikipedia. I used to go to the original one located between Avenida Lomas Verdes and Santa Juanita in Bayamon and let me tell you, forget KFC. Do you know the secret behind their formula? They marinated the "pollos" in beer. Anyway, here are two websites, especailly the "San Juan Herald" which would explian the notability of Martin's BBQ: [2] and Puerto Rico Herald. The article needs a little work. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words CoM. I'll admit, I honestly hoped that you weren't too upset with me. I know that I can be "over the top" sometimes with the "Can't we all just get along" stuff. On a side note, I noticed your post to Jimbo's page - I realize that I must now bow down before you as our supreme commander. :P — Ched :  ?  06:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Sultan. High Priest may violate the communalist push for total separation of church and state (is Wikipedia a de facto state?). But Supreme Commander would work okay, although I'm not sure if the pacifists would go for it. Maybe something more elegant like Supreme Purveyor of Truth would be good. Or Head Councilor of Fairness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That would have to be Supreme Purveyor of Verifiability, wouldn't it? LadyofShalott 05:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Amended remedy

The Committee has amended several remedies of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles, at least one of which mentions your name. You may view the amended remedies at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Remedies.

On behalf of the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

This is great news and just in time. I have some outstanding sources on Obama's true birthplace (hint:he's Dutch) and verifiable proof that Joe Biden is a robot with a circuitboard malfunction. The truth must be known! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hungry?

Harissa caught my attention, after the final episode of Food Network Star. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Assistance?

Hi CoM

Created an embarrasingly light stub that perhaps you might be willing to assist on.

Regards, Bongomatic 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian hotdish? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of it, but yep. Bongomatic 01:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman

Aren't you limited to one revert per week on BLP's? If so, you're over that limit. Scribner (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. But thanks for asking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right it's not just BLP's it's all articles, with a requirement to use the talk page on reverts, right? double check Scribner (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You wish. But as I suggested previously, instead of trying to find administrative mechanisms to attack me, an act of cowardice and intellectual weakness, why not find a source that describes Paul Krugman as other than liberal? It seems a ridiculous position to me, but it's certainly possible that there are sources that dispute the many references accurately describing his positions as representing viewpoints from the political left. For consistency, you may also want to do a search for "conservative" and remove the descriptor from relevant biographies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'd banned you permanently long ago. Stevertigo (talk · contribs), Sceptre (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Scribner (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)