Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:12, 14 April 2009

General user info
Username: ChildofMidnight
First edit: Nov 04, 2008 04:56:59
Unique articles edited: 4,615
Average edits per page: 3.76
Total edits (including deleted): 17,364
Deleted edits: 536
Live edits: 16,828
Namespace totals
Article	7355	43.71%
Talk	1767	10.50%
User	337	2.00%
User talk	4301	25.56%
Misplaced Pages	2618	15.56%
Misplaced Pages talk	120	0.71%
File	100	0.59%
File talk	10	0.06%
MediaWiki talk	3	0.02%
Template	3	0.02%
Template talk	211	1.25%
Category	3	0.02%
Month counts
2008/11	3280	
2008/12	3941	
2009/01	3541	
2009/02	2828	
2009/03	2372	
2009/04	866	
Logs
Pages moved: 114
Pages patrolled: 953
Files uploaded: 81
Top edited articles
Article
    * 99 - Burnt_Hair_Records
    * 93 - Bacon_mania
    * 87 - Ayn_Rand
    * 87 - Bush_ballad
    * 86 - Joan's_on_Third
    * 79 - Black_president_in_popular_culture_(United_States)
    * 71 - Poppy_seed
    * 71 - List_of_candies
    * 64 - Kishka_(food)
    * 59 - Drudge_Report
Talk
    * 137 - Ayn_Rand
    * 64 - Drudge_Report
    * 49 - Barack_Obama
    * 45 - List_of_Nazi_ideologues
    * 27 - Rashid_Khalidi
    * 26 - Kishka_(food)
    * 23 - Black_president_in_popular_culture_(United_States)
    * 21 - Tiki
    * 20 - Barney_Frank
    * 18 - Tina_Turner
User
    * 214 - ChildofMidnight
    * 16 - Kelapstick/Sandbox
    * 10 - Kelapstick/Sandbox5
    * 10 - Benshroyer/Sandbox/Petsense
    * 10 - ChildofMidnight/photos
    * 6 - MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_Reed_Cowan
    * 5 - Koshoes/Please_Y'self
    * 5 - Drmies
    * 3 - Ikip/NASCO_Properties
    * 3 - Micromaster/Sandbox
User talk
    * 938 - ChildofMidnight
    * 422 - Drmies
    * 148 - Warrington
    * 148 - Badagnani
    * 102 - Kelapstick
    * 95 - Scapler
    * 77 - Kelapstick/Archive_2
    * 73 - DGG
    * 68 - ScienceApologist
    * 63 - Bongomatic
Misplaced Pages
    * 201 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 34 - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
    * 18 - Articles_for_deletion/Subkulture
    * 18 - Articles_for_deletion/Fizzy_Blue_Bottles
    * 17 - Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand/Evidence
    * 17 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
    * 13 - Articles_for_deletion/Exopolitics_Institute
    * 13 - Articles_for_deletion/Bacon_mania
    * 13 - Articles_for_deletion/Bernard_Morris
    * 11 - Sandbox
Misplaced Pages talk
    * 42 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
    * 13 - Notability_(fiction)
    * 10 - Arbitration_Committee
    * 7 - Articles_for_deletion/Teleprompter_usage_by_Barack...
    * 6 - Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand/Proposed_decisio...
    * 4 - Notability_(restaurants)
    * 3 - Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Evidence
    * 3 - Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
    * 2 - WikiProject_Ships
    * 2 - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
File
    * 4 - Banana_cake_(Banh_Chuoi).jpg
    * 4 - Chocolate_cake_with_chocolate_frosting_topped_with...
    * 2 - Clams_casino.jpg
    * 2 - Devil's_food_cake.jpg
    * 2 - Three_inch_ice_cream_cake_with_fruit_from_Singapor...
    * 2 - Maya_Lin_sculpture.jpg
    * 2 - Mini_bundt_cakes.jpg
    * 2 - Sauerbruch_Hutton_GSW_building.jpg
    * 2 - Ma-kok.jpg
    * 2 - Taro_sticks_for_sale.jpg
File talk
    * 3 - Taro_sticks_for_sale.jpg
    * 3 - Mystery_food_1.jpg
    * 1 - Ma-kok.jpg
    * 1 - Florda_State_Fair_2008.jpg
    * 1 - Pork_and_cherry_picnic_pie.jpg
    * 1 - Gallon_milk_jug.jpg
MediaWiki talk
    * 3 - Spam-whitelist
Template
    * 3 - X6
Template talk
    * 211 - Did_you_know
Category
    * 1 - AfD_debates_(Media_and_music)
    * 1 - Minnesotan_cuisine
    * 1 - Bacon_dishes

Off-RfA RfA questions

It would seem that some folks are unable to wait for CoM to respond to questions at the RfA itself. I'm not sure that's appropriate. LadyofShalott 00:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

He asked to be nominated, and now he's taking his own sweet time to accept it, probably because he's got a pretty good sense of how it's going to go. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This was transcluded; it was then taken offline again. We're not psychic; we can't know an RFA is going to be un-transcluded when we comment on it. – iridescent 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to questioning him on his talk page with questions that belong here, not people jumping the gun on the actual RfA. LadyofShalott 00:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It started with CB asking him what's taking him so long to officially approve of a nomination that he himself asked for, and that's a fair question, and where would you put that question besides his own talk page? Then he responded with his little joke (?) about "you guys and all your sock and meat puppets", so he opened the gates. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about Tznkai's question, which is an RfA question. LadyofShalott 03:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you're referring to this: There are two different sections with the same label on that talk page, and your link jumps to the first one. Tz's question was in the second one. I took the liberty of renaming the second section: Baseball Bugs carrots 11:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Way too much "coaching", baiting, and "rally the troops" going on here. Admins. should be chosen on their knowledge of policy, their ability to remain cool under fire, and their respect and adherence to policy and guidelines. Humor and sarcasm don't always play well in a text environment, but civility is a fundamental core requirement in our community. I'd expect nothing less should this RfA go live. — Ched :  ?  02:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is fundamental, but "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." is an oft-forgotten aspect of WP:AGF as well. There are bits and pieces of this whole affair, from asking a recent RfA disruptor to nominate him to asking a blocked user to meat-pupped support that suggest that this is an elaborate game, which is consuming the time and energies of far too many editors. Tarc (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have noticed that the nom for this RfA has contributed 4 words to many RfAs recently "Too many administrators currently". Personally, those 4 little words don't consume any of my time or energies, but I did notice that it seems to have gotten a rather large number of editor's collective shorts in a knot. I don't agree with the assessment of too many administrators, and I can only speak for myself, but I don't concern myself with the opinions of others at a RfA. I look to my own opinions after having researched the candidates qualifications, contributions, demeanor, attitude, and temper. If ChildofMidnight does decide to accept this RfA, then I'll review any diffs, contributions, and WP posts (s)he has made - that way, the only time and energies of mine that are expended are those which I voluntarily contribute. Just because someone doesn't share my views or opinions, doesn't mean I can't respect them. In fact, since this is an encyclopedic project which requires facts be verifiable by reliable secondary sources, their personal beliefs (in my eyes) have absolutely nothing to do with how they are able to function with a 3 extra abilities. (block, protect, and delete)

Do I share Doug's opinion that more admins reduces the effectiveness of our project's efforts? Of course not. I do believe a large community needs a small governing body to resolve differences, but I look to ArbCom for that function. Do I think that Doug's 4 little words cause a disruption? Nope, sorry. I've not seen a single RfA that was swayed in any way by his !vote, and I've received enough assurance from closing 'crats to know that they don't even add any undue weight to his words. Make no mistake, I do see a disruption. That disruption, in my opinion however, comes from the collective group-think that effectively says: "He's doesn't think like us - let's ban him". That "lynch-mob-mentality" has caused so much pain and suffering throughout our civilization's history, that seeing it in a supposedly well informed, free thinking, intelligent community just frightens the beejeebers out of me.

Getting back to COM - does (s)he bring controversy to the political articles (s)he contributes to? No doubt. How is this a bad thing? As long as civility is maintained and policy is adhered to, then I welcome these ideas. Stagnation has been the downfall of many a once popular organizations. I don't want to see our political articles become an echo of salon.com. I don't even want to see them mirror the drudgereport. I want to see both sides of things presented in a fair and equal manner - then I will decide what I think for myself. AGF? ... well, I'll look forward to this strong evidence that should dissuade me from adhering to a core policy. Meatpuppet? I guess if 2 people agree with you it's consensus - if they disagree then it's meatpuppetry. (I use the term "you" collectively - I'm not referring to any individual editor).

COM may decide to run tomorrow, next week, or not at all - that's his/her choice, and no one else's. (S)he shouldn't be baited, badgered, or taunted into the decision. Let him/her make these decisions based on his/her own convictions, and at the time of his/her own choosing. elaborate game indeed. pfft. It'll only become that if others turn it into such. — Ched :  ?  13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention drudgereport.com, Ched, because CoM displayed ample reason never to be allowed adminship at Drudge Report recently. ► RATEL ◄ 05:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further questions

(moved from main page)

Questions 16 and 17 were posted by editors who apparently have been in a dispute with the nominee very recently, and were posted after FlyingToaster already asked everyone to hold off on questions. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The last seven questions were posted after FlyingToaster's request. Please review the two comments inviting further questions that follow FlyingToaster's request. Are you saying there is something wrong with the questions or that ChildofMidnight should not answer them? Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any suggestions about what should be done, I was just pointing out my concern with those questions. If you want to discuss this more, please take it to the talk page, because there's no point cluttering this page up more than it already has been. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. You seem to be questioning the questioners, and I see no point in that. ChildofMidnight has been in conflicts with many editors. Admins are expected to explain themselves and be responsive, particularly with people question their official acts. The questions Scjessey and I asked are phrased neutral, and fair questions of a future administrator because they relate directly to what ChildofMidnight might be expected to do as an admin. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's where we disagree; the questions struck me as a bit petty...that's subjective, though, and there's no point arguing over it, so we can agree to disagree. As for CoM's conflicts, I'm not trying to hide or gloss over anything—in fact, I don't know if I'll even be supporting him in this RfA (but I have to wait to see the answers to a few particular questions)—I'm just hoping the discussion can be kept civil. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You can be assured I will keep it civil, but asking these questions is not petty at all. The first question concerns the nominee's role in an incident that triggered a vigorous discussion on AN/I, and the other concerns the nominee publicly championing a blocked editor while challenging the blocking admin's actions and adminship on the blocked editor's talk page. TChildofMidnight's understanding of significant concrete situations in which he/she is currently involved is highly probative to how ChildofMidnight might see the role of an administrator. I reference a discussion that does not involve me directly, took great pains to phrase this neutrally, and do not state my own opinion either in the question or in this discussion. There is not much more I could do other than sitting this out entirely.Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I retract my comments. I guess we'll see what happens when it goes live. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This rewording is better, thank you. It's less of a "do you still beat your wife?" sort of question now. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think Wikidemon's question is an excellent one, and I think Scjessey raises a legitimate question/ concern. I have spent a lot of time online in the last few days and my candidacy has created even more of a fuss than I anticipated, and I did expect some fierce opposition. I appreciate everyone's patience, and I hope that no one feels that I am delaying as some sort of tactic. In an ideal world I would like to have had more time to discuss the timing with DougsTech before the nomination was transcluded, but that's not how it worked out. There are still some things off-line and online that I want to get caught up with before going forward. Once that's done I'm going to try to work on the questions already asked so that I will be in a better position to address additional issues and questions that are sure to arise. I appreciate the interest taken in my nom and I look forward to the discussion. If my candidacy provides levity for some of my critics or helps some editors let off some steam and frustration at me, that's okay with me. At the same time, I have no intention of making the process into a circus and I hope that no one feels I am acting in a way that disrespects the process. I understand that some of my choices have caused consternation and I want to apologize to anyone who feels that my candidacy is an act of poorly timed and unnecessary drama. That was not my intention. I would also like to reassure everyone that I have the highest regard for Admins who do a lot of the nitty gritty work that keeps things running smoothly on Misplaced Pages. I appreciate their hard work and I want to take this opportunity to say THANK YOU!. I will do everything I can to answer all of the concerns raised. Also, if anyone feels that this may turn out to be a big mess, I remind them that there is no compulsion to participate or to watch. :) I noticed the other day that there is no article for rubbernecking, so that will be one of the article projects I look forward to undertaking, however this process turns out. As far as timing, I have been advised that there is no cause for urgency and I'd like to give the process the time and attention it requires. I don't expect to move forward before early next week at the earliest, and I can't promise that it will be that soon. Thanks again for the interest and the time taken to raise questions and concerns. I hope everyone has a great weekend and a fun Easter celebration if that is part of their plans. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think that was a very well-stated and reasonable response. I would urge everyone to give CoM all the time he needs to reflect and consider. Given all the history of disputes and so forth, I would find it extremely difficult to support CoM's candidacy; nevertheless, I intend to keep an open mind and await CoM's responses to the questions before committing myself one way or another. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues that needed to be addressed

In the course of this (potential) RfA nom some things came to my attention that I wasn't fully aware of as far as some of my past decision making is concerned. I have tried to take accountability for some of the mistakes I have made. There were some instances where my behavior wasn't appropriate. I was usually trying to stick up for someone having a difficult time, but I failed to consider the effect my aggresive response had on the other party involved. I remain concerned about editors who are having trouble and who may feel ganged up on. I think every editor should feel valued and appreciated. I also think it's very important that Misplaced Pages be fun and collegial. So I am distressed to discover that in some cases where my intention was to do the right thing, my lack of a broader perspective allowed me to focus too narrowly and to push back with a ferocity that was inappropriate and without the calmness and respectful discussion that the situations required.

We all get frustrated at times, but I need to do a better job in these circumstances. My approach has at times contributed to the sometimes bitey atmosphere here, and given my concern that Misplaced Pages be fun and collegial this is especially distressing to me. Obviously I need to do a much better job handling those situations.

Apologies given out in the context of an RfA are sometimes discounted, but I have tried to set things right as best I am able. If I have missed anyone I apologize. I understand that the mistakes on my part cast doubt on my fitness to serve as an Admin at this (or any) time, and obviously those are legitimate concerns. As numerous editors have invested time and effort in this process I am still intending to go forward. Thanks again for your patience. Please let me know if anyone has any questions.

I am still trying to wrap a few things up and then I will start on the questions that have already been asked. If there is some good to come out of my mistakes, I hope that other editors will see that even someone who is near perfect can at times mess up. :) It's best to acknowledge the mistakes, apologize (or apologise) and move forward. In all seriousness, I am truly sorry for my mistakes and oversights. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good way to proceed. Collect (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out of course that the nomination must be accepted and put live at RfA before answering the questions. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I had thought he could work on the questions and make his acceptance and answers live at the same time -- is there a protocol requiring a delay? Collect (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If he did them all at the same time. I was just pointing out how to save him some time and editing, instead of answering the 20 questions and then not actually accepting the nomination. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)