I think it largely goes without saying that some remedy is needed to address the issues with ChildofMidnight, but the question is what kind, and Ryan Postlethwaite has offered some reasonable proposals on which I have already commented on the main workshop page. I wanted to offer some more in depth thoughts here.

As much as anyone I've found ChildofMidnight's behavior frustrating, but I think we really want to avoid a ban or an extremely lengthy block, at least certainly at this stage. C of M makes good contributions (which is relevant, though not a get-out-of-dodge-free card of course), and there are other paths to pursue aside from a long-term block, and which could end up with the (really quite simple) result we want: for ChildofMidnight to cease with the personal attacks, accusations, and general incivility directed at literally dozens of editors. In theory this should be easy to do, and perhaps even the threat of losing the ability to edit under the ChildofMidnight account will make that editor alter their behavior pattern—obviously that option has not hitherto been on the table.

Rather than a long block or ban, I'd like to see a remedy, similar or identical to Ryan's 3.1, that gives admins more latitude to block C of M the moment a problem comes up. Some of the past blocks have been contentious to the point that a number have been undone, and this has given ChildofMidnight a sense that he has been pursued unjustly by the admin corps (and indeed ArbCom) while he himself has done nothing wrong. I do not at all think this is the case (despite at least a couple of bad blocks, which do happen too often around here), but the fact is many of the past blocks have been at least somewhat debatable. What we have not tried yet is a firm, ArbCom decreed line in the sand: if any admin (or "uninvolved" admin I suppose) thinks you are stepping over the line in terms of civility, you will be blocked, end of story. ChildofMidnight will probably see this as a gross miscarriage of justice, but it might be effective in altering his behavior, simply because he wants to edit and can't do that while blocked.

The last point is also key in terms of thinking about a long-term block or ban. ChildofMidnight has spent a lot of time editing, and I do not think he would just walk away if blocked. Indeed in the past he has strongly expressed the view that we should not care so much if blocked or banned editors are editing under other accounts, rather we should let them do so and actually try to bring them back into the fold. Now I'm not at all saying that these facts mean ChildofMidnight is essentially "unbannable," but our goal here is to end the disruptive activity, so if he is banned but then returns under another name and starts up with some of the same stuff, which continues for a few months before we find out who is behind it, that will have been an obvious failure in terms of a remedy. I'd rather see ChildofMidnight editing under his current account, making the good contributions he clearly makes, and with a tighter leash (pardon the crude phrase) than is currently there whereby crossing the line on civility results in a block. To my mind at least it's worth it to attempt this path before imposing a lengthy block or ban which in itself might not solve the problem. I'll be offering a slight variation on Ryan's remedy 3.1 in a minute, but I think that's the direction we need to go. Obviously thoughts on all of these points are welcome. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually forget about me offering a variation on Ryan's 3.1 proposal—I was totally lying about that. Ryan's remedy works for me and I think that is the best route to go. Another possibility I've considered is some sort of mentorship or intermediary between ChildofMidnight and other editors, but I don't know enough about how that kind of thing has worked (or not worked) in the past to offer specific suggestions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely accepted that Child of Midnight makes many great contributions in article space while many of his edits in the rest of the project can be problematic. I hope there can be some solution to that which keeps a valuable editor. I think there have been cases in the past where a few admins or other veteran contributors have been chosen to mentor or intermediate. Perhaps, as an admin who has had a good relationship with CoM, I could help as one of those. Jonathunder (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for something along those lines if it's workable, and like you want to come to a solution that deals with the problems but keeps ChildofMidnight around as an editor. I think we can do that, but ChildofMidnight would have to be on board to at least some degree. Recent comments [1] [2] [3] (see the second and third to last sentences in the third diff, both of which are way out of line) are not very encouraging. For starters I would suggest that you and other admins (or editors) who have a good relationship with ChildofMidnight encourage him to participate here in a civil fashion, as that might lead to a situation he can live with (even if he thinks it's a miscarriage of justice) and which would still allow him to edit. I think that's in everyone's best interest, but references to "poo throwing smear merchants" (and worse) are really not helping us along that path. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone keeps saying COM makes such great contributions. Could someone list a few examples please? I know COM writes a lot, but since folks are commenting that his contributions are of such high quality, I'm wondering if anyone could recommend a few that are particularly excellent. WP now has about 3.2 million articles and if we gained or lost 10,000 we'd still have about 3.2 million, so we no longer gain much from quantity for its own sake. I'd therefore hope for any description of someone as an excellent contributor to be supported by examples of actual excellence rather than just volume. I'm not looking for a list of FA's or GA's either, since those labels no longer really denote quality--they basically measure the quantity of footnotes and illustrations, not the quality of the writing, and I've come to consider them to be less of a big deal than I once did. So I guess I'm hoping to see clear explanations of difficult topics, in-depth research using hard-to-find sources that illuminate a subject in unexpected ways, that sort of thing. Examples of non-outstanding but steady and solid contributions in core encyclopedic areas (as opposed to more fringe-y areas like internet memes) would also weigh in favor of the claim. Thanks. 75.62.109.146 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ryan Postlethwaite's proposed remedy 3.1 and the alternatives I've put forward, a certain type of customary remedy usually fails. Wikipedia does not have a good track record for handling people who are productive content editors with civility issues. Civility-based remedies are counterproductive when applied to Wikipedia's best writers. These people are wordsmiths; they straddle the line of blockable behavior with such skill that a single post ties up the attention of dozens of Wikipedians for days.

We need a solution that is proactive rather than reactive. People who are subject to snarks and barbs really don't want the snarks and barbs to happen in the first place. So an effective remedy would limit the opportunity for snarks and barbs to happen. It would also leave the editor as much freedom as feasible in areas where he or she is productive, and it would leave them a measure of dignity and peace.

The proposals I've put forward are based upon observations from years of mentoring. When mentorees came for advice before posting, matters went much more smoothly than when they waited until after a conflict resulted and sought help with the conflict management. Conflict management exhausts everybody; it's a distraction from real priorities.

So my two proposals are a short wish list. Please consider them as an alternative. Durova⁴¹² 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, please don't get too carried away with your own rhetoric. ChildofMidnight is not a "wordsmith". WillowW (talk · contribs) was a wordsmith. Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 72 KB ANI discussion lasted for two days until this arbitration case was filed. ChildofMidnight is sufficiently skilled with words to precipitate long and contentious threads. Much rhetoric occurs in those disussions; my efforts are directed toward minimizing the problems. Please exercise good faith and consider the proposals on their merits. Durova⁴¹² 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I was just commenting on your use of the word "wordsmith", which in normal circumstances is applied to writers like Shakespeare or Goethe. I don't disagree with your general sentiments or your attempts to find ways out of the singular predicament of this ArbCom case. Your choice of words was unfortunate and I am sorry that you appear to have over-reacted. Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the followup. Wordsmith has also descended far enough down on the literary canon to include Paddy Chayefsky, so it didn't seem quite too much of a stretch to adapt it here. The intended meaning is to make a distinction: most people resort to a limited vocabulary of epithets to convey an insult; that can be administered with blocks. Dorothy Parker once reviewed a play with If you don't knit, bring a book; the wiki equivalent of that needs a different type of remedy. Durova⁴¹² 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova thanks for posting the more detailed rationale/explanation above. I've no problem with trying this remedy out, the trick will be to find one or more editors to serve as a screener and to get ChildofMidnight on board as well (even as an ArbCom remedy, it won't do much good if ChildofMidnight ignores it or makes things difficult for the screener in some way). It's unfortunate that ChildofMidnight is not really participating here, because it would be good to sound him out on this proposal and begin discussing admins who could possibly serve in the screener role. If and when he begins participating in the case more actively someone who has a decent rapport with C of M should probably talk to him about this idea. Presumably the Arbs will start thinking about a proposed decision or so within the next week if they are still sticking to the March 12th target date, and I'd imagine they'd be much more inclined to support a remedy along these lines if there was some indication that the necessary arrangements were already in the works. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is one aspect of this angle that I'm a bit concerned about, that an entirely new sort of behavioral framework is being ad hoc'ed here. It sounds good in theory, since if an editor is somehow redeemable, then retaining them is indeed preferable to an outright ban/block. But how are applicants for what is essentially a special mentoring situation to be sought out? What are the ramifications for non-compliance? Tarc (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those things have to be worked out. As far as the "mentor" position (let's assume there is just one person) presumably it would have to be someone that both ChildofMidnight and the ArbCom agreed to (and the mentor would have to agree, of course). I think that's doable, but I think it's even more critical to spell out the "ramifications for non-compliance" pretty firmly at the outset. That is to say, if the screened editing isn't working for whatever reason (and it would be ArbCom's call as to whether or not that was the case) there are swift consequences at the ready: presumably either moving to something more akin to a civility parole or some sort of lengthy block. Establishing consequences at the outset is probably critical, because if the screened editing does go bust (and we all know remedies do fall to work with some regularity) we don't want to be right back at square one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The screened editing restriction is very similar to a topic ban so violations can be remedied in a similar manner to topic bans. Although it isn't mentoring, these proposals are outgrowths of my experiences mentoring. It is much easier to get an editor to reexamine their own choices before they post. Once a post goes live and elicits a reaction the editor's attention shifts to the reaction. As a mentor I often asked mentorees to come to me before they posted, but couldn't compel them to. About a year ago the Committee had an idea for empowering mentorship (basically making mentors able to page ban mentorees). The downside there is turning the mentor a political football, which hinders real progress and burns out mentors. Sometimes ChildofMidnight's input is insightful and useful; let's retain that portion and set up a positive feedback loop. Durova⁴¹² 01:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout on the part of the screener is a major worry here, and obviously that has happened with the "mentor" role in the past. One person I would kick out as a suggestion (and I don't at all mean to put them on the spot) is User:LadyofShalott. I don't know that editor but from what little I've seen she has an extremely level head and has worked well with C of M on a number of occasions. Taking on a task like this could be a lot of extra work and I'm definitely not trying to "draft" LadyofShalott, but that's the first name that popped into my head. I'm sure there are others as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say a lot here yet - just that I have been following these proceedings, and I think this an interesting proposal. There certainly are details that would have to be worked out. I am not ready to commit to such a role yet, but am certainly willing to consider the possibility - particularly if CoM were willing to try such a potential remedy and work with me. LadyofShalott 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LoS would be ideal as a screener, as evidenced already during this case. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Regarding Bigtimepeace's comment about burnout, it is far less draining to prevent problems than to put out fires. Two of the seven people I mentored over the years turned around from long block logs to become featured content contributors and graduated from mentorship. This proposal is structured to establish a positive feedback loop outside the line of fire of site politics, with a hope of replicating that success. Durova⁴¹² 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is because of the way this proposal is structured that this appears to be the only remedies that are worthwhile considering. If I have time, I'll propose slight amendments, but either way, this appears to be the only remedy I can support with respect to CoM of the proposals given so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that the arbitrators are now considering the Proposed decision. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]