Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:11, 22 May 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 25 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 23 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 92 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 62 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 46 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Stifle (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 105 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 84 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 71 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I really, really do not like making this proposal. If anyone checks the records, they will in fact see that I have historically been one of the few editors who has been somewhat on DeknMike's side. But the editor has a fairly long history of trying to get the content of the main Messianic Judaism article to support some internal positions of the group, specifically that they are older than independent sources seem to support. User:Jayjg has been most heavily involved in this, trying to get DeknMike to produce independent reliable sources that would support his contentions. I've tried to find such sources myself. So far as I had been able to see from the databanks I checked or the independent reliable published sources, the position is not supported. I and others have also tried to reason with DeknMike, to no apparent avail.

In this section, Jayjg indicates much of DeknMike's problematic behavior to that date. A check of the most recent article talk page comments would indicate that the problematic behavior of DeknMike hasn't changed. He misrepresents sources, emphasizes non-independent sources, and otherwise engages in disruptive behavior.

Although I am personally somewhat sympathetic to DeknMike's positions, as is apparent from some of my own comments, I have to say enough is enough.

I would request that DeknMike be banned from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well. There is not yet an article History of Messianic Judaism so far as I can see, but I would not rule out the possibility of such a page being created and possibly being subject to the same problems. Other related pages might also be subject to the same treatment if the editor is banned from only the main article.

I will myself continue to check the independent reliable sources to which I have access, and, if any of them do ever provide independent support for the MJ's positions, trust me, I will let everyone know on the article talk page. But none of us have the time to spend dealing with the problematic behavior which does not seem to be likely to stop without action of this sort. Based on the lack of existence of an article on the MJs history, I guess I would have to support at least a ban on the main Messianic Judaism article, and possibly on any yet-to-be-created article on the history of Messianic Judaism. But I am not sure that material might not be added to other related articles. On that basis, much as I dislike it, I think that a topic ban is possibly the option that would create the least trouble for others, and on that basis am proposing such a ban, although I would not necessarily object to more focused bans if such are proposed by others, and will try to comment on such . John Carter (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, please be more specific about the latitude of the proposed ban — either you need to list all of the pages from which you're asking him to be banned, or a description of the type of pages (e.g. "All pages dealing with the history of Messianic Judaism") from which you're asking him to be banned. If we enact a ban with "possibly related Messianic Judaism pages", there's too much latitude for him to claim that he's not editing a related page and for his opponents to claim that he was editing a related page. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Undedrstood. At this point, I propose the ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed. If a relevant extant article, like History of Messianic Judaism, already existed, I might consider limiting the scope of the ban to a few specific extant pages, but the present state of the content makes that a bit problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, et al have repeatedly stated their opinion that Messianic Judaism 'arose' in the 1960s. The word 'arose' is particularly troubling - what does it mean? Stood up/started? Emerged from the shadows? The sources used don't say. Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century...he tension between the Messianic Jewish movement and the Hebrew Christian movement had always been present. After the inception of the HCAA in 1915 Again, Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s... These external sources have been on the page for some time. What is 'disruptive' about citing the sources already on the page to say what they say? Except that I refuse to be bullied into ignoring true and reputable sources? I have admitted many times that the name was not mainstream in the US before 1967, and that it has seen significant growth since then (arose?). I have presented many sources that say the movement existed outside the US before the 60s, but the others in this conversation will not consider any sources they don't agree with or that says anything but their stated notion. I myself am not Messianic, though I attended their services in several cities, and have talked with leaders in the movement. I am an outsider trying to make sense of ALL the literature, not just the sources that agree with the opinions I held before the research began.--DeknMike (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe a more accurate and less self-serving comment would be more along the lines of "you insist on indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the basis for including material which does not meet basic wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the more obvious recent examples is to be found at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Jerusalem Council as source, in which you appear to take the position that because a self-published source makes a declaration about a specific group within the broad field of Messianic Judaism, that statement is true of Messianic Judaism as a whole. Such a position is not only contrary to policy, but actually even contrary to basic logic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(Pesky non-admin intruder again ...) Comment: is this just another US-centric problem? Pesky (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Messianic Judaism started in the US and remains overwhelmingly a US-based movement. Zad68 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support a general topic ban for DeknMike for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages. Reasoning:

• I was going to type up a long and detailed history of the issue, but it really has already been laid out pretty well here: Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. The basic issue is a very long history of civil (well mostly civil anyway) POV push. The description at Misplaced Pages:CIVILPOV fits the situation perfectly.
• The civil POV push is built on consistent (and sometimes sneaky) misrepresentation of sources. The editors at Messianic Judaism no longer have any faith or trust in DeknMike, and for good cause. Every one of his edits now is viewed with suspicion, and requires us to get him to show us the full text of the source he is trying to use, in context. Almost invariably, the source does not support his edit. This is really appalling.

• Here is just the latest example of misrepresentation of sources: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Another_source_misrepresentation_.2F_inaccurate_edit_summary.3F. The edit summary doesn't cover the whole edit, and the edit doesn't match what the source says. This misrepresentation of the source sat in the article for several days before somebody noticed.
• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_21#Deleting_reliably_sourced_accurate_material_again, there are more examples of sneakiness, where Mike was using the minor edit button to try to slip in significant content changes to the article. (He has since stopped trying to use the Minor button in this way.)
• More examples of misrepresentation of sources from the archives:

• DeknMike inserted the following text into the article:

In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.

What the source actually says, in the chapter on "Hebrew Christianity," is

On 9 September 1813 a group of 41 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews' Chapel. These Jewish Christians met for prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening.

Note, nothing about it being "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations".

• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_20#Misrepresenting_sources_again, from over a year ago, DeknMike is trying to do the exact thing as he's doing in the latest example, so clearly, this is a long-term, protracted problem that is still continuing through today.

• The Messianic Judaism article is itself in pretty bad shape. It used to be a good article but quickly fell apart. I think it has the potential to be restored to Good status, but I see DeknMike as an impassible obstacle to improving the article.
• Attempts by John Carter to encourage or mentor DeknMike in improving the article in areas other than history consistently fall on deaf ears.
• I have had, occasionally, some productive interaction with DeknMike on the Talk pages of the Messianic Judaism article, see for example Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_22#Non-summary_statement_in_Lede where we actually worked together and came to an agreement on a change to the lead, which still stands today. Although I've felt I've been on the receiving end of some personal attacks from Mike, honestly they aren't that far out of line from how lots of other editors I've seen behave on Misplaced Pages. For these reasons, I am proposing not to include Talk pages in the topic ban.

Zad68 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Zad, how would you define the phrase "Jewish Christians?" Pesky (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article Jewish Christian does a reasonable job of addressing that question. However, I cannot see how it is acceptable according to policies and guidelines, including WP:SYNTH, for any editor to instantly assume that any "Jewish Christians" must necessarily be among those described as being within the group Messianic Judaism. There are and have been other groups and individuals prior to modern Messianic Judaism who have been described as Jewish Christians. If we were to accept that argument as valid, we might just as easily call them Cerinthians, Ebionites, Elcesaites, Essenes, Nazarenes, Nazoreans, or Saint Thomas Christians, or followers of Antinomianism, Marcionism, or any number of other names that have been applied over the years to individuals who have been roughly described as "Jewish Christians." John Carter (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should avoid getting into a content debate here, this is about editor behavior. If we find one of the examples I have listed questionable, I'll provide a different one. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• . I thought it might end up here. I've pretty much stopped watching the page (or rather stopped bothering to click through to follow the daily edit summaries) so my comment has little recent value, but might provide some background. Firstly, John, there is a history page, Hebrew Christian movement, which has the same editors but gets less traffic - partly I suppose because it mainly represents the more "assimiliation" minded and Gentile-funded Victorian Jewish missions. It also contains the same 9 August 2011 edit as Zad68 points about above as OR that the 41 member 1813 Hebrew Christian congregation in London was the "first" - which I can't see how is a problem on a content level as putting into Google Books immediately pulls out 3 sources supporting that this (correctly r not) in sources is regarded as the "first" (since two of the 3 sources - Stan Telchin & Rich Robinson are anti-MJ Evangelical works I'm assuming they aren't internal sources). The reason I mention that is that if that's the worst example of DeknMike's OR, and we have to go back to August 2011 to find it, then how come it's supported in Google Books? ......that said, the issue here isn't content so much as constantly pushing edits and pushing with a slant - which usually get reverted. I initially thought Jayjg was being too picky in some of the edits being blocked, but have come round to see that in almost every one of DeknMike's edit a sourceable factoid is being accompanied by a tail with distinct POV/OR characteristics, meaning both the sourced factoid and the tail get reverted. In addition John Carter - who is evidently neutral if not vaguely favourable - has offered DeknMike the opportunity to pass edits through him first. I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something. What I personally would suggest is that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article, and others commit to check every week or so, with more leisure than now. There's also another potential issue with a topic ban - POV concerns aside I'm not sure that it's healthy for en.wp to ban the only active User of a particular religious group from editing his/her religious group's article. Particularly as MJs are a group, like JWs?, to which most of their religious cousins range from suspicious to hostile. That may be a consideration outside AN scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that we pretty much banned every western Falun Gong practicioner from that content some time ago, for POV pushing, so there is precedent for that. But I would think that only two months would be far too inadequate. Procedurally, there have been indefinite bans from a topic in the past, which are reviewed later and ended. That would probably be the best way to go here. And I do think, maybe, allowing him perhaps to leave notices at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Jewish Christianity, for anyone to see, might be sufficient for him to propose new edits. If, however, DeknMike were to agree to a self-imposed topic ban, I would probably agree to that. If he would agree to that. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe a bit more listening to each other, in a more relaxed atmosphere, might be good. I don;t think a self-imposed topic ban is the way to go about that, personally, but if it's the only thing that works for you, he may have no option. Looking at the above information, though, I'd like people to think about "Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s..." and "Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century" and see if they can understand why DeknMike believes that saying it arose in the 1960's is wrong. See if you can discuss this one carefully with each other, looking to understand the "other side's" reasoning. Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead? Pesky (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order. Zad68 correctly stated the article is within the category 'formerly Good Articles', but including it in a discussion about me might lead some to conclude is was delisted BECAUSE of me. In fact, it was delisted in 2008 ] and I didn't join the conversation until March of 2010 ]. To say otherwise misrepresents the issues even more.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: DeknMike is correct on the dates of the article's delisting and the start of his involvement editing it, and it was not my intention to imply that his editing caused the de-listing. My point was that DeknMike's involvement at the article was an impediment to its return to Good status. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DeknMike, I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". There was just something (well, several somethings) about it which rang warning bells for me. I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. I think there's far more to this than meets the eye, and that what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it. I'm not saying that that is intentional (though of course there's always the possibility that it may be), just that these things happen. I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first. Pesky (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether I would qualify under the terms of TPC above, but I had gone through the sources available to me on EBSCOHost, JSTOR, ProQuest, NewsBank, and other databases, as well as the materials in the local public libraries and the libraries of Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis University, and Webster University. There is very little in the way of academic books dealing with the topic of modern Messianic Judaism. While it is included in a few encyclopedias and dictionaries of religion, none of those I saw, including some of the most relied upon, trace the MJs to before the middle 20th century. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ThatPeskyCommoner, two points:

• First, when you say 'I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".' what exactly is the deviation from truth that you are concerned about? What are the "warning bells," exactly? When you say, "what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it," what are they? Please be specific. It appears that you are questioning the truth of something being presented here, and if so, we need you to identify exactly what it is so we can address it. This is Misplaced Pages Administrators' Noticeboard, this is as serious as it gets on Misplaced Pages (short of ARBCOM). John Carter did not list this case without thought or in haste, and I am not participating here without thought or in haste. I hate being here. I don't want to do this. But John Carter and I feel it has to be done for the benefit of the Misplaced Pages project as a whole.
• Second, when you say:

  I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. ... I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first.

  Sorry, "may be needed"? What else do you think a topic-ban request at Administrators' Noticeboard is asking for? We are asking specifically and exactly for an experienced, uninvolved Admin to review everything in detail. Are you suggesting we're hoping to get our request get rushed through without careful review, or that Admins don't normally review topic-ban requests carefully? John Carter, the editor who brought this request, is indeed a "scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin," is an Admin, has over 150,000 edits (please take a moment to reflect on this!), has religion-related articles an area of his special expertise, and has been only minimally involved in the edits at Messianic Judaism--he has not edited the article at all during the time-frame we are discussing, and has less than two dozen edits to the article Talk page in the time-frame we are discussing.

Pesky, you are asking others to make a careful, painstaking review of the detail; have you done so yourself? Have you read Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again? Have you reviewed the edits and compared them to what the reliable sources say? Of course everyone can contribute to these WP:AN discussions, but contributions here can't be valuable if you haven't done your homework. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit counting isn't necessarily a mark of quality or knowing what you are talking about. John Carter became an admin on 14 Jan 2008, if it matters (I have no interest in the subject) Secretlondon (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the date. I understand what you are saying. I was trying to come up with some objectively quantifiable, independently verifiable way to determine if John Carter is an "editor in exceptionally good standing" as Pesky requested. It's difficult to be a very, very active editor and also keep sysop over a very long period of time, so I think it says something. Perhaps what Pesky is asking for is too subjective to satisfy. Zad68 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all difficult given the near impossibility of desysoping. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then Pesky will have to leave it to the individuals reviewing this to make their own, subjective determination. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. DeknMike has strongly held and fixed personal views on the topic. This wouldn't be an issue, except that he continually edits the article to conform to his personal views, regardless of what reliable sources actually say. A classic (and the most recent) example is this edit. The source in question is discussing Christian missions to Jews; from the early 1800s to the mid 1900s mainstream Christian churches established Missions to Jews (often in areas where significant numbers of Jews lived), attempting to convert them to Christianity. The source itself states

"Missions to the Jews during the period were conservative evangelical institutions. It should be noted, therefore, that the years from the 1920s to the 1960s were not ones of decline but rather a period of growth for these enterprises in size, experience, organization and sophistication."

DeknMike "summarized" or "paraphrased" this as:

Its leaders used the decades to build a strong, respectable reputation, and hired Jewish converts as missionaries. Among the missionaries were Martin (Moishe) Rosen, who later founded Jews for Jesus.

This shows the heart of the problem. The source itself says nothing whatsoever about "strong respectable reputation", "hir Jewish converts", or Martin (Moishe) Rosen. Moreover, when asked what the phrase "its leaders" in his insertion refers to, he states "Why the Messianic Judaism movement, of course!". The source itself is discussing Missions to Jews by established Christian churches, and also explicitly states in that chapter that the "Rise of Messianic Judaism", the "first phase of the movement", occurred "during the early and mid-1970s". DeknMike is well aware of this.

This has been going on for three years. DeknMike has fixed beliefs about the origins of the Messianic movement, and cannot accept what reliable sources say on the topic, so he attributes things to them that they don't say (in the past he would also delete them, but he doesn't do this as much any more). As the various links provided above show, he has modified one specific statement in the article, sourced to seven reliable sources, twenty-three times, simply because he cannot accept what they say. When confronted on the article's talk page, he makes unsubstantiated claims, often accompanied by irrelevant comments about other editors, then typically goes away for a couple of months until the furor dies down, before repeating. There seems to be no way of making him accept what reliable sources say when it disagrees with his beliefs, nor any way of convincing him to edit in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jayjg 16:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I rarely even look at that article any longer specifically due to this problem. Previously, I was quite an active editor at the page and had numerous encounters with Mike. The problem was exactly as already described: Mike would take vast liberties in claiming that a particular reference stated something when, upon examination of the source, the reference did not. The agenda-pushing was obvious. In fact, without wishing to cast too negative a vibe towards a fellow editor, I often felt that Mike's methods of POV were sneaky - that, if able to get away with it, Mike would re-insert or re-attempt the agenda-pushing after a short time in what I perceived was a hope nobody would notice. This grew tiresome. and only Jayjg appeared up to the task of constant enforcement, whereas I drifted away from the article. Lastly, I agree that the article at one point was in better shape - if I recall correctly, it was written by consensus without the need to tilt it in one direction or the other. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2000). Messianic Judaism. Continuum. p. 16.

Arbitrary section break (DeknMike discussion)

Pesky, can I ask you to do me a favor--Please step back from your suspicions of what you think might be going on, assume good faith, at try to look at it from our point of view for a minute. Can you see that your involvement in this discussion so far appears to assume that the concern that John Carter and myself and Jayjg have been dealing with isn't legitimate? Can you see that you have made vague but pointed statements that appear to question whether what is being presented here is truthful, but you bring no specifics that deal with the heart of the issue for us to review with you--in fact, you then admit you haven't actually reviewed the details? (This was made especially clear when you wrote, "See if you can discuss this one carefully ... Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead?"--the archives show we've been trying do exactly that for well over a year!) Can you see that you imply we are trying to hide the truth? Pesky, these assumptions feel like an attack, and are upsetting. However, if you feel you know someone who meets your standards (and they are good, high standards!) please do invite them to review and comment here. We want the same thing as you. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this or how I'm supposed to address it. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad (and others!) – apologies if I upset anyone; that wasn't my intention. Sometimes we get so tied up / bogged down in a situation that it interferes with our ability to see the big picture as a complete outsider would. (It's that Confirmation bias thing.) I can see that you all have problems with this situation; my suggestion of discussion wasn't about discussing the article, as such, more about finding a page where you could all get together and discuss the history of your problems with each other, try and unravel them, everyone (DeknMike included) walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, and that stuff. Sometimes that works much better than discussing the article itself (but I do know how much yer average male dislikes openly discussing his feelings! Gross generalisation, I know, but it often holds true!) It's a shame you can't all go down the pub and have several beers together ;P I did email the editor I thought of, but they are on a break and haven't responded (yet). Hugz to all concerned, anyway. I hope you can work something out with the minimum of pain all around. Pesky (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. However, I tend to agree that, intentionally or not, your own comments seem to imply that myself, a self-described devout Catholic, and Jayjg and Avi, who are I think both Jews, are in some way sharing a single confirmation bias. I do not see how such a position is very reasonable itself. In fact, the talk page history will reveal, in fact, that I have engaged in rather substantial discussion with both of them regarding whether there has been any sort of authoritative rejection of the Jewishness of the MJs, which would I think go even further to weaken such claims. This complaint however is not about that. Like I said before, there isn't a great deal of academic material out there on the MJs. I've checked the Washington University libraries, counted as one of the ten best university library systems in the US, the Saint Louis University libraries, counted by Gordon Melton as one of the best religion libraries on the planet, the local public libraries, seminary libraries, and other libraries, in addition to the various databanks. As Jayjg indicated in the section I linked to, DeknMike has a fairly clear recent history of misrepresenting sources, producing material which fails verifiability, and other conduct issues which are, I believe, sufficient cause for action to be taken in this instance. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, we're not looking to start a personal relationship with DeknMike, we just want him to edit in conformance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. That shouldn't be too much to ask, and yet this has been going on for three years now. Jayjg 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I am certainly an involved editor as relates this article. DeknMike has had, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of patience shown to him as regards his edits. He tends to misrepresent sources, promote fringe or insufficiently (for Misplaced Pages) substantiated opinions, and does so with the intent to promote a particular point of view (to which he is entitled to hold, of course) which certainly does not reflect the vast majority of reliable and verifiable sources written by peoples of all creeds. He may disappear for a while, but comes back performing the same non-wiki-acceptable edits, despite the policies abd guidelines having been explained to him again and again. Whilst unfortunate, I agree with the above editors that at this point, DeknMike is acting as an impediment to improving the article, and has acted in a way that makes it difficult to trust that he will edit the article in accordance with our policies and guidelines in the near or forseeable future. A one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions) would seem appropriate; perhaps focusing on other areas for a while will help DeknMike internalize the policies and guidelines, and the extra care needed to maintain the necessary neutrality when we edit articles about which we have a strong feelings. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. What this comes down to is an opinion that Messianic Judaism as a belief that is illegitimate and is nothing more than a new name for Christian missions, created in the 1960s. There has been a consistent push (beginning before I joined) to delegitimize it as a religious movement that is separate both from traditional Judaism and Christianity. The methods include emphasis on why it's the wrong name, discounting sources that give alternate views on the movement, and attacks on anyone who writes otherwise. My so-called 'strong feelings' are for a fair and balanced article that lets the movement talk about itself as freely as other editors let outside/opposition viewpoints be heard. I'm grateful to the other editors for improving my skills, for spurring me to additional research from more sources on all sides of the issue (my opinions aren't 'fixed'); I wish these others could approach the topic with equally open minds and not make it fit their preconceived notions about it. If the content reverted to the 2008 version, with minor updates, it would be much better. They have been trying to reign me in to their views, yet I keep reading sources that contradict their POV. When I've asked for OUTSIDE opinions, they follow me to those boards and make the same tired accusations. This POV won't accept any source that doesn't align with their preconceived assumptions. If Feher, who said its "origins can be traced in the United States to the Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries" had meant 'began' she would have said 'began' and not 'arose.' Of his oft-repeated 7 sources, four say a segment of the Hebrew Christian movement emerged and changed its name and one says it existed in the 1940s. Yet they continue to harp on that one undefined word with no thought as to finding consensus, though I have tried over and over to find a synonym that squares with the 'approved' sources, even discounting the sources they veto as 'not authoritative enough'.--DeknMike (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First, Mike, it is generally understood without saying that the person being proposed for a ban disagrees with it. Second, your own comments above clearly indicate why the ban is sought. And your clear statements which directly violate WP:AGF contained in the above statement also demonstrate part of the problem. You accuse others of "preconceived assu\mptions", which have to my knowledge never been demonstrated, as an apparent excuse for avoiding dealing with the issue of your own violations of policies and guidelines. The "tired accusations" you rail against are in fact attempts to get the material to abide by policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:SPS, and WP:WEIGHT, and, in your individual case, WP:POV. In short, you have been regularly acting out of accord with policies and guidelines, and sought instead to impugn others as an attempt to distract from that. I personally have no opinions one way or another about the MJs, about whom I have no particular interest one way or another. The fact that you keep reading sources self-published by MJs does less to demonstrated the POV of others than perhaps the POV of those sources, and perhaps that of an editor who seems to seek out those sources. Like I've said, I have been to several libraries, and consulted all the online sources available to me. It is so far as I can tell your own preconceived notions which are the issue here, not those of anyone else. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Sadly, as the latest edits to the Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism (my latest edit here), and Mike's latest edit here, show the behavior causing this WP:AN discussion to be created in the first place is continuing right through this moment. Regarding Messianic Judaism, Mike's ad hominem that the other editors at the article are on a mission to "delegitimize it as a religious movement" instead of a embarking on a good-faith effort to get the article to reflect what multiple, independent reliable sources say is a new attack that fails WP:AGF and continues a disruptive editing pattern. Mike's suggestion that the article should be rolled back to what it said in 2008 (which was "Modern Messianic Judaism was reborn in the 1960s," supported by a single reference to the outrageously non-WP:RS anonymous blog "Messianic Judaism - The Best Recipe. RabbiYeshua.com. Kehilat Sar Shalom.") is a conclusive example of his desire to push a POV using sources in a way that is entirely unacceptable to WP:V, over having the article reflect what reliable sources say. Regarding the content (especially Mike's latest untrue contention here that "one says it existed in the 1940s"), please see the latest on the article Talk page--this WP:AN thread is about editor behavior issues, article content discussion is at the article page. Zad68 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it untrue that reference 10, by the same author as reference 3, says quite clearly: "When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form. ... It conveyed the sense of a new, innovative religion rather that an old, unfavorable one. The term was used in reference to those Jews who accepted Jesus as their personal savior, and did not apply to Jews accepting Roman Catholicism who in Israel have called themselves Hebrew Christians. The term Messianic Judaism was adopted in the United States in the early 1970s by those converts to evangelical Christianity who advocated a more assertive attitude on the part of converts towards their Jewish roots and heritage"? How, then is my direct quote of the source 'untrue'? I keep assuming good faith, but see little in return. I acknowledge my own point of view and guard against it, but see little reciprocity. I tolerate wp:weight with regards to detailed lists of why others don't believe MJ is a valid religion. I don't remember a single instance in the past few years of WP:SPS, though perhaps you've been keeping track.--DeknMike (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The quote is true, your interpretation of it is not, as I mentioned before this content dispute is covered here: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism. At this point I'm going to leave this to the review of others. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I became aware of this problem last October. At the time, DeknMike was doing exactly what is being raised here. Multiple reliable sources stated one thing, DeknMike disagreed, so he insisted on changing what they said, or interpreting them as saying things they did not say. When challenged, his answers were mostly inventions, tangents, OR personal attacks. I don't think there's any hope he'll stop, after this long. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the topic ban for now, as too many potential analogies of babies and bathwater come to mind. I think I'm neutral enough to chime in here -- I've been an occasional editor at the article in question for a while, and have watched various debates involving DeknMike from afar. I can see the basis for claims of POV-pushing, but he absolutely has contributed constructively to the article. In the case of this edit, Mike's statement actually is backed up by the latter two sources. Though the text shouldn't have been placed behind several refs that did not explicitly support it, that doesn't look like a blatant misrepresentation of sources to me. I've countered some of Mike's arguments before, but I give him the benefit of the doubt here, and note that he actually made a change to the article which comported with multiple sources cited. Granted, there are places where he hasn't done this, but I've also seen other editors ignore sourcing at least as much as Mike ever has. For example, Jayjg completely ignored the source's actual words when he reverted an edit made by Dalai lama ding dong that was basically a matter of syntactical nuance only, and should have been completely non-controversial. The fact that I had to revert a revert that wouldn't have taken place had Jayjg bothered to scroll to the bottom and read the source excerpt just irks me, and makes me suspect of this whole situation.

There are problems with the article. For sure. Until I fixed it, one ref had been used to back up a statement exactly to the contrary of what it actually said. No one who has edited the article of late is innocent, but it's completely unreasonable to single out Mike alone in this regard, and the fact that it's being done like this just makes me uneasy about some editors' motivations, particularly given other seemingly nonsensical changes to sourced material by Mike's opponents that seem to only serve the purpose of distancing the content of the article from what associated organizations say about themselves, no matter how non-controversial the (sourced) statements may be. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one has said that Mike is incapable of making any good edits - as Marwood says in Withnail and I, "even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day". The problem is that the vast majority of his edits on this topic have consistently been problematic, a fact your comment fails to address. Jayjg 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My point, though, is that many of the claims (made by multiple users at the talk page) of certain of his edits being nonconstructive or uncorroborated by sources simply were not true. His edits were reverted and combatted on that basis, but in some cases (not all) that basis was either incorrect or nonexistent. I haven't gone through every one of his contribs, so I can't verify whether or not the majority of his contributions were nonconstructive, as you say. As far as I can see (and I'm not all-seeing by any means), he doesn't deserve his topic ban. I rather liked In ictu oculi's suggestion of a voluntary sanction, but a full topic ban is totally inappropriate at this stage, in my opinion. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Evan would you please, please, please read up on the full history here, there plenty of links are here for you in this WP:AN discussion, it's distressing that you would !vote without reviewing the contribs and Talk page history. Please read my !vote above in support of this topic ban; I said specifically that I have indeed had constructive interaction with Mike at the article and gave a link to a specific example. This is actually already taken into account in the proposed action--the ban would not include topic-related Talk pages for that very reason. Question back to you is, how low can the signal-to-noise ratio be allowed to go, and for how long, before action needs to be taken? One good edit out of... 10? 100? Take a look at the history please and tell us if it changes your mind. The rest of what you wrote, such as questioning a revert of Dalai Lama Ding Dong by Jayjg, is basically "nobody has clean hands" and reminds me of how WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

When did I say that I haven't reviewed the contribs or the talk page history? I said that I hadn't "gone through every one of his contribs". I'm familiar with the situation; in fact I have been for months now. How many of Mike's 1,661 edits have you personally reviewed?

The Jayjg revert is relevant because it shows how much attention (i.e., none) several of the editors pay to edits before getting revert-happy on the article. I'll respond to your question on the signal-to-noise ratio by inquiring as to how many times constructive edits (a few of which Mike's, most of which weren't) ought to be reverted before action is taken. There is no mathematical ratio established by policy that deals with that sort of thing. You know that as well as I do, so don't be facetious.

I've already shown that at least one of Mike's contested changes to the article was backed up by at least two sources, while it was disputed and removed from the article under the false assumption that it was not backed up by any of them. In other words, a large part of the reason we're here is because the reverting editors didn't take the time to actually check the sources before reverting Mike's edits based on a hunch. Is that acceptable to you? Don't we have a responsibility to honestly and thoroughly evaluate changes to an article before dismissing them out of hand? Or are we at the point now where a group of editors can completely override verifiability? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It has also been shown above that the majority of Mike's edits have been in direct opposition to Misplaced Pages's core principles, have been engaged in trying to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to promote a personal point of view, and have been continued despite multiple explanations and warnings. Most of Mike's work has been carefully reviewed and found to be wanting, if not outright inappropriate. Bringing in one revert by Jay about the term "religious", done to the edits of a different editor, not Mike, does not in any way shape or form detract from the well-documented history of Mike's inability (or outright refusal) to follow the rules which he agreed to follow by creating an account here. If anyone has an issue with verifiability, Evan, it's Mike, not Jayjg. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't removed under any "false assumption", and the issue here is that DeknMike is completely overriding verifiability. It might make sense to review all the evidence provided. Jayjg 01:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I can see easily why everybody's got heated here, and everybody (DeknMike included) has excellent points. Also, I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation, and moving forwards. Pesky (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, did you read the history as was asked of you before !voting? This !vote does not at all address any of the well-documented, long-term, persistent disruptive editing. It appears to be based on a desire not to see someone's feelings hurt, rather than a desire to allow improvement to Misplaced Pages content. How much weight should be given to a !vote that doesn't address any of the core issues raised? Regarding "I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation"--I am not seeing any evidence to support this statement because DeknMike has not made any article edits and has not at all joined the discussion on the article Talk page since you started providing input there. All the current activity at the article proves is that when Mike is not involved in editing the article or in the discussion, progress can be made. Zad68 13:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zad here. Pesky, your opinion does not address the issues brought in the request, instead talking about "points". This is not an issue of feelings, but of a documented long-term pattern of someone who refuses to abide by the guidelines and principles that Misplaced Pages requires of all its members when it comes to a particular topic area. Instead, this person persists in violating said core principles to further a personal agenda. This has been going on, if I am not mistaken, for multiple years. The project needs to enforce protections of its core principles somehow, and, at this point, I do not believe Mike can edit in this area in accordance with our rules. Some time off from this area, allowing Mike to develop that ability, is warranted, in my opinion. As an aside, Pesky, which points of Mike's do you believe are "excellent" and simultaneously in accordance with our policies and guidelines? -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Per the problems outlined above, specifically editing inconsistent with the given sourced and edit warring. Editors with far less egregious behavior have been topic banned from subjects that they edit as an SPA. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lack of massive evidence: A topic ban requires an extensive amount of evidence, not just several users expressing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Because Misplaced Pages is not a witch-hunt, I must oppose a topic ban which lacks massive evidence of disruptive editing, or lacks numerous personal attacks against other editors, etc. Disagreement is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I would ask you to perhaps read a bit more thoroughly the comments above. Avi's comment that, and I quote, "...the majority of Mike's edits have been in direct opposition to Misplaced Pages's core principles, have been engaged in trying to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to promote a personal point of view, and have been continued despite multiple explanations and warnings. Most of Mike's work has been carefully reviewed and found to be wanting, if not outright inappropriate." That goes far beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but clearly states that the editor has behaved in a way which is directly contrary to wikipedia core principles. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

!vote summary (DeknMike discussion)

Summary of opinions (last updated 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC))

Here is summarized only the !votes and proposed scope and timeframe of the ban; arguments for or against are not covered here. NOTE: summary was written by me, Zad68, hopefully to make reviewing the current status easier. It is MY UNDERSTANDING based on the contributions here, and I have done my very best to reflect what people have proposed accurately. If I got it wrong for you, or if your mind has changed, PLEASE CORRECT IT. (Please do not change the entries of users other than yourself.) Zad68 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

At this time, there is general agreement among supporters for topic ban on article pages defined by content area (as opposed to a specific list of pages), but the exact scope has not yet been made unambiguously clear. The idea of excluding article Talk pages from the ban has been proposed and no supporter has objected. Two supporters propose a one-year duration, but there has not been significant discussion about the duration of the ban.

• User:John Carter as nominator, topic ban "from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well"; updated as "ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed."
• User:Zad68, topic ban "for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages."
  • I update my proposal here to specify a time frame of one year. Zad68 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• User:Jayjg, "Support topic ban" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
• User:A Sniper, "Support topic ban" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
• User:Avraham, "Support ... a one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions)"
• User:Plot Spoiler, "Support" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
• User:Brewcrewer, "Support" without ban scope detail or timeframe.

Non-!voting comment

• User:In ictu oculi - "I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something" suggesting "that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article."

Oppose

• User:Evanh2008, "Oppose," but Evanh2008 does go on to say "I rather liked In ictu oculi's suggestion of a voluntary sanction, but a full topic ban is totally inappropriate at this stage"
• User:ThatPeskyCommoner, "Oppose topic ban"
• User:Wikid77, "Oppose due to lack of massive evidence"

Named party

• User:DeknMike "Oppose"

Request for closure

This thread had been moved to the archives for lack of activity before being restored. I would very much like to have an uninvolved administrator review the discussion and close the conversation one way or another. I cannot believe having the matter unresolved will in any way be useful or productive to the editors involved in the content under discussion. Thank you in advance for closing. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh. I was actually about to close it with a topic ban for DeknMike (talk · contribs) from any content or page related to Messianic Judaism; I think the evidence and discussion clearly support such a remedy. But in looking at DeknMike's contribs, I see he's been active at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, as have I. I'm not exactly prepared to take a chance on this site's ever-shifting definition of "involvement", so I'm going to pass - but I think there's clearly a strong rationale for a topic ban here. MastCell  18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal for editor Horizontal Law

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I propose yet again another community ban against Horizontal Law (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's already a mastermind sockmaster, who puppeteered the account Flowers of Romance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and created another set of sockpuppets under that account, which is somewhat the same way how GENIUS(4th Power (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) masterminded the Rusty Trombone accounts. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him/her. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: There's plenty clear and convincing evidence, and his/her Sockpuppet archive clearly tells it all, and well as his inappropriate conduct on Misplaced Pages. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - blocked users who use sock puppets must learn their place. It's game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - based on history of significant abuse of sockpuppets. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question - what has he actually done? Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong, I just haven't the faintest idea what he has done because all I see is less than a page of minor edits by one account, that look weird but not obviously ban-worthy, and no edits by another one. Are there a bunch of deleted edits? Egg Centric 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lack of massive evidence: A community ban requires an extensive amount of evidence, not just several users expressing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Because Misplaced Pages is not a witch-hunt, I must oppose a ban which lacks massive evidence of disruptive editing, or lacks numerous personal attacks against other editors, etc. Disliking is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - The user has abused multiple accounts, all of which have been promptly blocked under existing policy. I don't quite see the need for a community ban, as any future sock activity that isn't a "Fresh Start" would be considered illegitamite and dealt with accordingly anyway. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Future time-stamp to prevent archiving before closure. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Echigo mole

Nobody Ent 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since 2011, he's been repeatedly creating sockpuppets as per here to evade his block over a 1 year period, and It appears that he's just egregiously trolling, disrupting lots of Arbcom cases, and to many, he's just another disruptive troll and nuisance on this project. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Due to the nominator of this ban.
• Support on procedural grounds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but Echigo has been indeffed. As I understand it, an indefinite block is more "effective" than a ban. See WP:BP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You are, but that's ok :) Banning doesn't change the fact that he is indef blocked as well. Banning means the person is no longer part of the community (indef blocked people still are). See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Unofficially, banning offers more teeth in reverting and dealing with the user. A single admin can't undo a ban, only a block. And there is the statement part of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Just to let you know, this is the seventh time I am reporting an editor on ANI to get them banned. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is nuts, these constant ban votes for editors that have been indef blocked forever are 100% pointless. And no, it isn't that I don't understand the difference, it is that banning Echo-whoever, and all the other trolls and puppeteers and vandals, isn't going to change one single thing for anyone. No admin was ever going to unblock him unilaterally. No one was ever going to get nailed for reverting him because he wasn't banned. No one considered him part of the community. We're not making any "statement" whatsoever. The only conceivable benefit is the warm glow in the belly from a good 2 minute hate, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. Khvalamde, I will pay you $5, a barnstar, and one free pass to say a rude word to someone here without getting blocked (or, if you are blocked by someone else, I'll unblock you immediately) if you just promise to never bring another ban discussion to this board. Please, I am begging. Stop this ridiculousness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you Buick Century Driver, that's an obvious one I forgot to list. There is no chance that the ban is going to convince them to go away. If anything, it might make them want to stick around to prove the ban is toothless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a somewhat odd statement to make, offering to reward a user with a barnstar to stop making frivolous proposals. While I sympathize with your suffering I question the reasoning of giving community rewards to stop a user from making frivolous proposals. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • Personally I have nothing to gain from this. I surmise that Khvalamde was personally involded and this could be a last resort, but I could care less if Echigo mole comes back and makes good edits. Of course if the activity is vandalisim the best way to stop them is to protect the page they're targeting. Once they know they can't edit the page, they'll probably give up on what they were doing. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To make sure I'm being clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ban them because they might become rehabilitated. Semi-protection isn't going to work on serial sockpuppeteers, it would be useless. But so is community banning them. We shouldn't have these votes all the time because they make no difference except to waste time and give a false sense of security. Echo-whatsis (along with the other VFB's here recently) is already defacto banned; there is no benefit to making it a formal ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Though I'm not one to participate in these discussions, I seriously doubt this is going to keep this person away from the site. If efforts were made to steer this person away from his or her disruptive behaviour and they ignored, then there is nothing I can do to avert this person's fate. If not, then I strongly suggest we mitigate the block for 1 year and suggest he or she can return in the future. I also strongly belive that bans should be handled by the arbcom. They're experts in policy and usually wind up giving a fair sanction. Often these bans lead to nothing more than an endless game of cat and mouse with the user and the time it takes to keep them off could have been used to improve articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I see absolutley no harm in converting a de facto ban into a concrete one. If there's even a scintilla of a possible benefit in doing so, then it's a good thing. These are people for whom the collective good faith has totally run out, and I see value in the community affirming that -- or, if the proposed ban fails, in the community's realization that there is still some perceived value in keeping the possibility of the editor returning alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • BMK, what scintilla of a possible benefit would that be? What possible benefit is there? I think it's far more likely that being banned gives them more incentive to mess with us. If anything, there is a scintilla of possible harm. The only benefit this thread will bring is the small joy I get from typing the fun not-used-often-enough word "scintilla" multiple times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam: One benefit is that the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight, which is not true of the edits of block-evading indef-blocked users. As for incentive, given his record, Echigo mole already has sufficient incentive to mess with us, ignoring him isn't going to change that, nor is banning him. -- I think Mathsci can confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, banning isn't a death sentence, things can change, community bans can be removed by the community, should there be a change of heart and a sincere demonstration of having turned over a new leaf. There's no particular reason to avoid an appropriate ban simply because it's a more restrive sanction than an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

An indef blocked editor can't make edits, so what good does the revert on sight protocol do?Nobody Ent 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Easier to enforce - editors do not need to spend quite as much time dealing with the disruption caused. As a one-off thing, it's no significant difference, but when it happens often, it can be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Floquenbeam has a good point. Why have a ban or block when said user can very easily step around that? See User:Grundle2600, User:CentristFiasco, and User:Ryan kirkpatrick for good examples of that. --MuZemike 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF -- user is already banned (defacto) and Floequenbeam's point is spot on. Nobody Ent 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, not the ban, but the process of seeking a formal confirmation for it just for form's sake. We have a perfectly adequate policy on this: per WP:BAN, users who get themselves indef-blocked and then continue with a persistent pattern of block-evading sock disruption, already are considered de facto banned. The recent fashion of bringing up all these cases for formal reconfirmation of the ban has the effect of watering down this good old rule and spreading the myth that the old principle of "a banned user is any user who no admin would ever want to unblock" somehow is no longer valid. There is no difference between a formally enacted ban and a de facto ban of this sort, except that theoretically the threshold for an admin to try to override it and unblock a user would be lower for the latter type. But in most cases this possibility is remote and any unblock would quickly be overturned with a massive troutslap, so it doesn't really matter. For this reason I basically agree with Floquenbeam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I think the opposes are less than convincing as to the merits of whether or not Echigo is considered banned. I am a little more than appalled at the logic that we shouldn't ban or block an user just because they can find a way around it; why bother having useful edits made to the encyclopedia if all the work are inevitably going to be damaged by vandals, tendentious editors, and other users who should not be editing Misplaced Pages? While I appreciate the frustration regarding why should we necessarily confirm a ban from so long ago just because of some recent socking, that does not really warrant an oppose to this ban because it does nothing more than confuse/complicate matters - an oppose would mean there is some willingness to unblock the user (so a ban is not warranted), while your rationales apparently contradict that as there is no clear support from you regarding the ban itself. If you are getting annoyed with an user unnecessarily bringing up ban discussions on an ongoing basis regarding indef blocked users where official bans are not necessary (in light of the defacto bans), comment on their talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - when too much editor time is unnecessarily being wasted on cleaning up, I am not going to oppose efforts to cut down on that - purely because some admins fail to appreciate the difference this will have on other editors who do not have the luxury of extra buttons. I also don't agree that this is the appropriate discussion for "watering down our normal practices", so I am changing my comment to clarify my support for the ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I tend to think "what's it going to hurt to have a formal confirmation", but FPaS' point about this watering down our normal practices is convincing — this ban won't have a practical benefit and is part of a pattern that's not going in a good direction. Community ban proposals should be for people who aren't already (1) blocked indefinitely, and (2) obviously blocked permanently. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban due to abusive sockpuppetry. And as sick as some people are of seeing ban discussions I'm equally as sick of seeing them endlessly bitching about it. It's been discussed a million times. A community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single administrator. And the entire "de facto" bollocks is an utter debacle as I knew it would be. Every time there is a ban proposal there is this endless bullshit about "de facto this" and "indef is fine, nothing changes with a ban" that. Clearly it is different or there would be no such thing as a "ban", admins would just block people and leave it at that. The fact that ban proposals repeatedly come up indicates that you're not going to get your way and ban proposals will not stop unless you either eliminate the concept of a community ban or you change the way Misplaced Pages works, namely via discussion and consensus. If you don't want to participate in ban discussions nobody is holding your feet to the fire. But quit derailing every ban discussion with this endless bitching and griping, it is FAR MORE DISRUPTIVE than any ban discussion has ever been. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Floquenbeam. Thanks, Dennis, for the explanation and pointer. Could we make it any more complicated?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What this section fails to address is why the ban was so merited in the first place to result in further measures. To me this seems a case of Double Jeopardy in wanting to provide additional punishments after the fact. And if that is to occur, then in my opinion there should be at least a token analysis of the original discipline so we can assure ourselves that (a) it was warranted, and (b) all possible measures need to be instituted to stop the user. A glance at the diffs provided shows little more than an affinity for Grunsky Matrices (whatever those are). For me to assume more discipline is required I would need to feel assured the original discipline itself was warranted, let alone that more is necessary. To my mind that proof has yet to be presented and without it this would be a hasty, premature, and careless rush to judgment which I will not support. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

• Strong support for community ban of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole Echigo mole started out life as A.K.Nole. He has wikihounded me since 2009 first as A.K.Nole and then using the account Quotient group. (On Misplaced Pages Review, he had the account Greg, if I remember rightly.) At that stage he was unwilling to admit to being an alternative account, but Shell Kinney interceded in 2010, corresponding with him by email, and he admitted to being an alternative account of A.K.Nole and agreed to stop wikihounding me. That promise did not last. He subsequently edited as:

• Taciki Wym (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Holding Ray (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Julian Birdbath (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zarboublian (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

He trolled on arbcom pages using ipsocks in the range 212.183.1.1/16. The edits he made relating to me are catalogued here:

• User:Altmathsci/vodafone

That editing was clarified by the arbitration committee in January 2011, when it was unclear whether these edits were by A.K.Nole or Mikemikev. Elen of the Roads informed me that they were by A.K.Nole and the ip range was blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney along with the above named sockpuppets. The other sockpuppet accounts can be found on the investigation page and include the following accounts:

• Echigo mole (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Krod Mandoon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Glenbow Goat (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Laura Timmins (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Old Crobuzon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Reginald Fortune (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tryphaena (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• William Hickey (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ansatz (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Southend sofa (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Wozbongulator (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Since December 2011 they switched from vodaphone to the ip ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16. The diffs of all the edits related to me were described during the current arbcom review. That information was gathered up to 13 April, but there have been about 30 edits since then and several ipsocks blocked by either arbitrators or administrators.

• Edits in the range 94.196.1.1/16 :
• Edits in the range 94.197.1.1/16

This person follows my edits and pretends to have expert mathematical knowledge (they are barely at a second year undergraduate level in mathematics, probably only have done a course in computer science, and are generally clueless about any mathematics that is graduate level or beyond). They troll on arb com pages, arbcom clerk talk pages and arbitrator talk pages. Instead of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, MuZemike could have attended to the outstanding checkuser case (Krod Mandoon) which Courcelles dealt with by indefinitely blocking the account and removing his trolling edits on the Requests for amendment page. This user has worked out my real life identity and has attempted to out me in various places. Amalthea has suggested that a Long Term Abuse file be prepared for this editor. It would not look very different from the above, but I would be cautious in describing the way in which this wikihounder goes about outing me. I have to be continually vigilant. Having said I would support a community ban, the LTA is more helpful. I do know of one community banned editor who is editing through another account. At the moment it is not worth reporting, since his editing patterns are not disruptive (he has started university in a new location and that I would guess is more suited to his personality). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Echigo mole/A.K.Nole has now started to troll here (what a surprise). But all his edits repeat themselves ad nauseam, each one claiming to be from a new person. Misplaced Pages does not work like that. The edits are instantly recognizable because of the standard IP ranges used and their dreary repetitive content. WP:DUCK and WP:DENY apply in this case. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The user's record is appalling. We don't need this kind of disruption. Prioryman (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I looked at the diffs and user's edits briefly and couldn't understand what the issue was. Perhaps you could show more clearly which edits they made originally that were so objectionable? All I saw was a potentially unhealthy interest in discussing esoteric mathematical subjects with you. To convince me the original ban itself was warranted, let alone that more discipline is required, I will need to see specifics as to how they acted rudely. I did not even see where you asked them to stop talking to you, which to me would show this was stalking as you claim. This long list of diffs needs to more concisely pinpoint where abuse occurred for me to acknowledge the original ban was even necessary, let alone a more stringent action. Clearly discipline isn't deterring them anyway so we might as well make sure the original decision was correct rather than making a careless judgment which will only encourage them further to oppose it by suggesting careless injustice. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of de-facto-banned users

Perhaps we should look for a more general solution to this issue of de-facto-banned users. As the thread above shows, there is, on the one hand, the long-standing practice, enshrined in WP:BAN, of treating indef-blocked users with persistent disruptive sock habits as de facto banned. On the other hand, there is perhaps a legitimate feeling of insecurity among some users confronted with the ugly task of cleaning up after such users, because without a formal ban decision they don't feel confident they can safely invoke the 3RR exemption while dealing with the socks, or they feel they might less easily find admin support for getting them blocked, etc. However, as Floq's comment shows, some of us have misgivings about the trend of having a growing number of such cases brought up here for confirmation merely for form's sake.

Maybe we should think of a simpler alternative to solve both problems? How about we add a "de facto" section to the official list of banned users at WP:BANNED? Any admin could add a user name there if (a) the user has been indef-blocked for a longish period; (b) there has been a significant, persistent pattern of disruptive block evasion; (c) the reasons for the block are such that the block appears likely to remain permanent. On adding a name to the list, the admin would merely give a brief notification to WP:AN, without the need for a formal confirmation through a !vote (but an AN discussion about the user's status could of course be held if there are objections). The listing would serve the purpose of giving other editors a formal assurance that socks of this user can be treated with full "banned means banned" force, and it would also be a signal to other admins asking them not to consider unblocks lightly and without prior consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as a good solution to the issue (although this solution is far too logical and practical for me to expect it to be implemented by this community). Sven Manguard Wha? 15:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone give me an example of an editor getting in trouble for reverting a de facto banned but not de jure banned vandal, puppeteer, or troll? I have never seen this happen. We remove the edits of block-evading indef-blocked but not-officially-banned users all the time. Who has ever tried to revert Echigo mole, for example, and been stymied or threatened because someone said "Echigo mole isn't banned"?

  If that happens, then de jure banning makes sense; but I don't think it happens. The only time banning makes a difference for reverting all edits is when someone who is indef blocked is making edits that some people want to be able to revert, and others don't. But that is not the case with de facto banned vandals, socks, and trolls that get brought up in votes for banning so frequently.

  If the fear of a 3RR block for reverting a de facto banned editor is driving this, wouldn't it be much simpler to just change the wording of WP:EW to say that reverts of de facto banned editors is exempt too? That would certainly match current practice, anyway. Better than another process, IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's to change? WP:NOT3RR already lists "indefinitely blocked accounts." Nobody Ent 15:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh. (pause) Nevermind. I don't think it used to say that. Then yes, I don't see a need for anything more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Sven Manguard; this proposal does seem to sort out a large chunk of the problem. As to the alternative "change the wording of EW" proposal suggested after that, imho, the same problem would exist: there is too much of a grey line as to whether (and the point at which) editors can actually consider certain users as de-facto banned - with admin support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What's gray? Open the users block log -- if they're indef'd as a sock they're de-facto banned and their edits can be reverted. Nobody Ent 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

For a start, that understanding is not quite right. An indefinite block for being a sock does not automatically mean the user is defacto banned, at least from my reading of sockpuppetry, blocking, banning and administrator policies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, although you have made this change to sockpuppetry policy since my comment, I don't think that quite cuts it either. I can see a situation where an editor (who evades a particular block made by a certain admin) proceeds to make constructive edits; in that case, even though the blocked user should theoretically wait for the official unblock to be granted, it does not mean that a reversion of the constructive edits is permitted by default. In fact, a flawed original block may be what led the user to appeal in that misguided way. The distinction between that user, and a banned user, is that only after careful consideration, the community have deemed that the unconstructive edits of the banned user outweigh the positive contributions the banned user may/will produce - which is why any edits by that user may be reverted on the spot. I am of the view that enacting Fut Perf's proposal may produce a more meaningful outcome in terms of settling this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have reservations about using something like "de facto" banning as acceptable, because there is always the unlikely but possible chance that, for instance, someone who is apparently a new sockpuppet isn't a sockpuppet. The legal system had similar problems with executing people who were later found innocent, for example. Having said that, I do think that it makes sense to have some sort of confirmation of "de facto" banned users. Maybe a rather unfortunately legalistic vote to formally ban a list of "de facto" banned editors on a somewhat regular basis, like every three months, might work best. This would give individuals who are not sockpuppets a chance to maybe build up a case before the axe falls on them. At the same time, it would help admins who hesitate to perhaps go beyond what they see as being clear in policy regarding "de facto" banned users have the question cleared up for them. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sorta support in that it reduces, but does not eliminate the problem. The problem can be eliminated by not bothering to have these discussions about such obvious cases, but OK, fine, if someone wants to create a list, as long as the list contains a phrase which says that not being on the list doesn't mean anything, than fine. In other words, the existance of a list of de-facto banned users does not mean that a person not on the list is not also de facto banned. That is, disruptive users who continue to be a disruptive force continue to be treated exactly like every other banned user regardless of any discussion or placement on a list or anything else. The list is fine, and if it can reduce these discussions, fine, but that doesn't mean that we should suddenly stop reverting disruptive users on sight merely because some pointless bureaucratic event has not occured first. --Jayron32 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "De Facto" crap needs to be destroyed with fire. As long as it exists, people will spend endles kb arguing over what it means, who can tag as "de facto" banned, etc. And "De Facto" banned is nothing different from an indef block meaning any admin can come along and unblock them while a community or arbcom ban can only be overturned by community consensus or via Arbcom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• If a user who is blocked is evading the block, they can and should be treated as a de facto banned user. To take any other approach is to encourage block evasion. Rather than creating a new list or having these long discussions again and agin, we should just make this clear in the policy so we don't need to do either of those things. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Burpelson's point is a very good one: when a single admin can undo a "de facto" ban, and the boundaries of what is and isn't a de facto ban can be endlessly argued about, the community ban provides a straightforward statement of the editor's staus, one that can't be argued away, can't be undone by a single admin having a bad judgment day (it does happen occasionally), and requires the voice of the community to overturn. Along with the increased latitutde to revert edits, these are concrete benefits to continuing the institution of the community ban, and not undercutting it by refusing to implement it for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actions and behavior of the subject editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama Talk Page Discussions

Edit request

Template_talk:Cleanup#Red_warning_for_new_instances

It is quite urgent as it will cause {{Cleanup}} to turn into large red warning if no reason supplied (instead of the cleanup tag) if it was placed after April 2012. As it it would be great to implement this as Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from May 2012 is empty. (support for this change is listed in linked section) Bulwersator (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas

• Viriditas (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I don't like personal attacks (, , , ). I have warned him three times by now (1 text, two Twinkle-tags) (, , ). But rereading his talkpage, he in fact said that he wanted to battle it out if I dared to report him. In fact, I took that as a threat and request to report him and so here is the report.

By now, Viriditas is also warned about his behaviour by two other Wikipedians. It seems that his passion for "Template:American cuisine" is going out of hand. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll gladly take your fishy bait. Those diffs show responses to your personal attacks and your repeated trolling of the template talk page. To date, you made 11 contributions to the discussion over at Template talk:American cuisine. You trolled the talk page in your second edit, when you proposed adding an image of lard to represent all American cuisine. Then, you attacked me personally in your third edit. You demanded I prove a negative (typical trolling behavior) in your sixth edit, made a fallacious appeal to the majority and to non-existent, anecdotal evidence in your eighth edit, avoided answering a simple, direct question (and replied with a trollish accusation) in your tenth edit, and directly contradicted yourself and a previous edit you made (indicating you were trolling) in your eleventh edit. After discovering you weren't getting the "bites" you were after by trying to start an uber-trollish America vs. The World dispute, like the kind we find on external forum sites, you then proceeded to visit my user talk page, where you spent the next hour template bombing and harassing me to bait me even further. Please use an external website for flame wars about Americans vs. other nations, because this is the wrong site for it. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Interesting, but I can see the Belgian article without any subscription and with a clear picture of a hamburger in it: De Standaard. Besides that. I am not the only requesting you to stop your attacks. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please stop the trolling; that isn't a reliable source for anything on Misplaced Pages. Finally, you need to stop the stalking and blanket reverting of my edits on pages you've never edited before. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Aha, another unsubstantiated attack. May I point on the fact that I reverted only 7 of the 13 templates you altered. And that you reverted all 7 without any comment? Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You're trolling, again. You stalked and hounded me on articles you've never edited before for no reason other than to blanket revert my edits and harass me. Further, you haven't participated in the discussion about these edits, so accusing me of not commenting on your reverts is just more trolling on your end. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
          • So what? I don't see any edits of you at the templates about Canadian Cuisine, Japanese cuisine, Korean cuisine, Serbian cuisine, Turkish cuisine, Pakistani cuisine, Moroccan cuisine, Italian cuisine, Algerian cuisine, Indian cuisine, Chinese cuisine, British cuisine and Argentine cuisine, before you removed the picture. But if you read the history properly (what you clearly didn't do), you can see edits of me on the templates about Turkish cuisine and Serbian cuisine (where I didn't revert you). Why you deny me the right to edit those articles is an absolute mystery to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
            • • The real mystery is why you are hounding me and blanket reverting my edits without any known reason for your reverts. It is a mystery is why you keep avoiding the argument and attacking other editors. The mystery of your continual disruption is the issue. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
                • Do you have any real arguments or do you only have PAs and false accusations available? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Use of the term xenophobe by Viriditas did come off a bit extreme until hearing his side of the story. Night of the Big Wind wanting pictures of lard shown as representative of American cuisine, and suggesting Viriditas is ignorant for not being abroad more, is somewhat inflammatory. Perhaps there is room for agreement by having a section on "Global perceptions of American cuisine" which could provide sourcing for what views outside American are concerning its cuisine. Viriditas is right though that it needs to rely on sources and that this is more a 'culture war' than any attempt to resort to personal attacks. I think there might be a little too much sensitivity here and hopefully there is room for compromise where both sides are presented. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Aha, a now blocked sockpop (see his talkpage) Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Viriditas has not been on his best behavior in the discussion, he openly violated WP:3R by reverting the article to the state he wanted it to be in. He ignored WP:BRD at first, insisting that his was the proper way to have the template configured. The main issue I have with him is that he ignored one of the baser protocols when arguing a point - Argue your points and point out the deficiencies in the arguments other commentators, but do not point out percieved deficiencies of the other commentators themselves. He made several snide comments regarding myself and others in his attempt to argue his point. These actions were a bit over the top for someone with his time and experience he on WP.

I took Night's comment for what it was, a joke made in an attempt to lighten the tone of the conversation. We as Americans have a problem with obesity and he was poking fun at that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Ah... So refreshing to see Viriditas name at WP:AN. I don't think a site ban is sufficient in this case. Do we have a sanction more severe than that? Can we ban him from the Internet? Lacking a total and complete irrevocable biometric Internet ban for life--and any reincarnated personages--perhaps this should be moved to WP:WQA. On the serious side, V was definitely edit warring--and his justification doesn't hold water. – Lionel 04:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• On a side note, if you wish to participate in the discussion at Template talk:American cuisine, you are welcome (referring to anyone who reads this). The more people, the better. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog