More care should've been taken to ensure these modifications were made when the blocking tool was used the first time.
Entry 21 19:18, 13 February 2010 Admin 16 blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 minute (correction:unblock was primarily due to consensus to unblock established at WP:ANI, ArbCom matter was secondary)
Entry 20 02:45, 13 February 2010 Admin 16 unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" (to allow him to participate in ArbCom case related to his actions)
Entry 14 18:37, 8 October 2009 Admin 10 changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2009-10-09T06:18:50Z (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
Entry 13 18:34, 8 October 2009 Admin 10 changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2009-10-09T06:18:50Z (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Disruptive editing)
Entry 12 18:18, 8 October 2009 Admin 10 blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours (Disruptive editing)
Entry 3 23:44, 24 June 2009 Admin 2 changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Incivility)
Entry 2 23:36, 24 June 2009 Admin 2 blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (ivility)
Entry 21 02:45, 13 February 2010 Admin 16 unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" (unblock was primarily due to consensus to unblock established at WP:ANI; also to allow him to participate in ArbCom case related to his actions)
Entry 19 18:32, 12 February 2010 Admin 15 blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing: offensive language, assumption of bad faith etc)
Circumstances [2] (from this section to the bottom of the page)
Entry 18 02:29, 23 January 2010 Admin 14 unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" (while not the most civil of comments, the aforementioned comments were neither personal attacks nor harassment nor disruptive)
Entry 17 19:17, 22 January 2010 Admin 13 blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: Disruptive editing on Talk:Lawrence Solomon)
Circumstances [3] (from that section to the bottom of the page)
Entry 14 18:37, 8 October 2009 Admin 10 changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2009-10-09T06:18:50Z (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
Entry 11 04:15, 20 September 2009 Admin unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" (Not a clear violation.)
Entry 5 03:54, 29 July 2009 Admin 4 unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" (promised to avoid Arrest of Henry Louis Gates and similar articles)
Entry 4 23:55, 28 July 2009 Admin 3 blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Arbitration enforcement: 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; 12.4.1)
Entry 3 23:44, 24 June 2009 Admin 2 changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Incivility)
Entry 1 02:44, 8 May 2009 Admin 1 (talk | contribs) blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: on Presidency of Barack Obama])
How many more of those which shouldn't have occurred is a question in itself as I was time constrained. Although the mistake may have been occasional in the case of each blocking admin, it is obviously not occasional in the case of this user - that is, 21 entries were made when only 7 should've been made. CoM voiced concerns about the damaging effect the actions were having on his block log, others have voiced similar concerns, but the poor use of the blocking tool has continued since the time of these concerns, and desysops cannot remedy the concern. This effect would remain regardless of if the actions were made in good faith. It therefore seems necessary, in the interests of moving forward, that appropriate provisions are made regarding administrators in general. 7 out of 21 is grossly unsatisfactory.
When Entry 1 was made, the blocking administrator failed to provide a notice or rationale, and was unreceptive to criticism to this effect. Even if the block was arguable, the lack of receptiveness and curtness displayed by the blocking admin was not taken lightly by CoM. The arbitrator that tried to moot this issue by placing a notice failed to respond to CoM's concerns about the block, even in the later decision.
When Entry 10 was made, the blocking administrator failed to follow the enforcement provisions, that was 3 weeks over the maximum duration. Entry 11 was a bad unblock due to a lack of discussion, but it was inevitable in light of the non-compliance in Entry 10. The matter was considered moot by ArbCom, but clearly the concern about the block log continues to be a problem today.
By this, arguably, 17 block entries that were accompanied by impropriety out of 21 block entries which were made - that leaves us with 4 block entries that were necessary and proper, though I have not investigated those circumstances either. Do we continue to make an unreasonable expectation that CoM must maintain infinite good faith or do we recognise that much of his responses were predictable as he reasonably believes that he has been subjected to abuse by administrators? We need to find a way to move forward that does not result in such issues, or certainly, reduces the likelihood of such issues occurring in the future.
Using the blocking tool in a manner that is improper seems to be something that is becoming increasingly common, which only adds to adverse perceptions about administrators in general [6][7] - this trend needs to stop.
