Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985

Greetings all. I've just filed a

• The page is protected, unless there's additional issues there's no need to try and rangeblock the entire school, but individual violations can be reported at
  schoolblock}}s as needed. Swarm ♠
  22:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I gladly accepted an IBAN with User:Godsy because of their persistent stalking of my edits and antagonism toward me. With this series of edits [14] they alerted another editor to 4 Drafts handled by me (and 3 handled by User:Hasteur) with the clear intent of overturning my actions, then summoned a third editor to also edit for them. Does stalking edits, making a list and editing by meat puppet violate an IBAN? I'd like this to stop either way. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Related to this - I was not impressed at all with the way Godsy pinged every editor previously either neutral or in favor of his position at
  Cryptic
  19:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @
    Cryptic: What else was I supposed to do? I am not allowed to ping them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT
    ) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Not ping everybody else. —
      Cryptic
      20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It was necessary, and appropriate per
        WP:APPNOTE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT
        ) 20:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis: it was

WP:CANVASS. Guy (Help!

) 08:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means Seems like it would be a violation of the IBAN. "by other means" would be getting another editor to undo someone's edits. — Maile (talk
  ) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: "Editors should not remove [Template:Promising draft] unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it" per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts. I update User:Godsy/Promising drafts to match Category:Promising draft articles almost daily. I identified the missing pages, confirmed the templates were no longer present on them, then notified the user who placed them. No interaction with Legacypac occurred. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I monitor all pages tagged with {{

• Comment the only way to resolve this dispute is to have a wide-ranging, well-publicized discussion that determines the rules for draftspace, and to ban either or both of Godsy and Legacypac if they act to subvert that consensus. My recommendation is to TBAN both of them from further participation in the current discussion at
  π, ν
  ) 20:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the current system of dealing with drafts pretty counterproductive and in many ways contrary to the principles of the rest of wikipedia, so a big discussion to change or specify the rules is definitely needed. Still, part of the problem is the unusually acrimonious editing atmosphere, so the suggestion made above for and ArbCom case is probably not in the wrong direction. – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

04:17, 31 May 2017 Nyttend (talk | contribs) blocked Godsy (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment: WP:HOUND) Which was a direct response to hounding of me. This is a long term problem. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have only been hastily blocked once and it was a bad block (because of Legacypac's continued false allegations against me whenever they think they can get away with it). Tavix (another administrator) and others shared that belief. The related community (not a unilateral decision by one administrator as my block was) discussion

I was planning on staying out of this, and I don't think I'll comment more beyond this, but given the context, you may want to rethink the snark and passive aggression of I will not lower myself and push the community's patience by listing them all here. That's not a good look. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Point taken, thanks. I have removed that part from my comment above. I just find this thread very... frustrating. I will try not to let that bleed into my comments anymore. Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: thanks for that. Just a minor quibble: typically it'd be better to strike it rather than remove so people can see what I'm referencing. I think that'd be the best case here, but I do appreciate your trying to fix it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:  Done — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Cathy Areu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catalina (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• National Association of Latina Leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be a back and forth between competing accounts, attempting to promote or discredit the subjects. In the last few hours the bio has included unsourced claims of a mental breakdown, as well as names of relatives and contact information. Most all of this is inadequately sourced. Several questions: do these need to be locked; do users need to be warned or blocked; and are any of these clearly notable subjects? I'm wondering whether an AfD is appropriate to include all three. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:859E:8EBD:BD49:DFD3 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: another discussion about this issue was recently started at
  WP:BLPN#Cathy Areu. Woodroar (talk
  ) 13:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Terrific. Thank you, Woodroar. 2601:188:180:11F0:859E:8EBD:BD49:DFD3 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just reviewed all of your account's edits. None have been reverted by Cluebot, but most have been reverted by other editors, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of sources, original research, and readibility (none of the reverters have alleged vandalism, however). If you object to any of these reversions, either take it up with the reverting editor on their talkpages, or discuss it on the article talk page. Steve Smith (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken–there was one reversion by Cluebot here. That does appear to have been a false positive by Cluebot. But it's a single instance. Steve Smith (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Two have been reverted by Cluebot, actually. Ya missed this one, Steve. But that would have been likely reverted by, or at least edited by, another user, for a number of reasons. Lcs, I would caution you about editing the grammar here, as your attempts seem to introduce more problems than improvements. (Folks can check his user page to see what I'm talking about.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, actually read his talk page. There was also this, and Eggishorn decided this was vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I blew that one. I agree that the reverts were probably all justifiable, but not on the basis of vandalism. I've reported the false positives to ClueBot. Steve Smith (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think a bunch of people need to read
  WP:BITE. No one has welcomed OP, no one has explained the actual issues with his edits with real messages on his talk page (templates don't count), no one ha stried to explain any important site policies and guidelines. I'll go do that now. Ian.thomson (talk
  ) 19:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

bitey. In this case, what happened is that a new editor started out by biting a bot, and then got a lot of reasoned commentary about their edits, which was the proper response to their biting the bot. Robert McClenon (talk

) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Flagged User:Eggishorn's attention: [15]. Steve Smith (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging in Cobi - think it's only fair as it is his bot after all.

not human, it is a computer program, therefore it is unable to check edits. If something sets off one of its filters, it will revert that edit as possible vandalism. If it's wrong, please report the edit here

. You may also remove ClueBot NG's warnings from your talk page.

If ClueBot NG does this to you in the future, please report it here, not ANI or ClueBot NG's talk page. That way we can train the Bot.

Any questions, just ask :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• LooneyTunerIan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User has a long history of disrespect towards other users with insults and derogatory remarks frequently found in their edit summaries. Their edits are frequently reverted and they do not seem willing to work with other users. Hoping for some adminstrative assistance here. See their most recent edit summary on the The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle page where they said, "Chapters have sub-titles too, ya bum! I've decided to put them into the summary box. And if you don't like it, you can report me to the admins! 'Cause one thing is for certain: you don't know how to secure these articles any better." – BoogerD (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User does have a long tem history of not working well with others. Here's an unblock request from July 2015, and I quote, " If you're gonna block me for 6 months, you'd better make it forever with a notice saying: You are hereby banned from Wikipedia forever! And that means no more editing! Now go find your own wiki to edit all you like and never come back! Ever! " That was the only block though. Talk page is littered with concerns about user's incivility. Ordinarily, I'd refer to dispute resolution, but I don't know.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 01:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I remember this editor. Probably should have been indeffed as NOTHERE way back in 2015. If the disruption and general battleground attitude hasn’t gone away, I’d still support that now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support block per either CIR or NOTHERE- There's a difference between making a sarky comment or telling someone in less polite terms to do one .... and then being incivil 24/7 365 - Their reply to the ANI notice is enough for an indef imho, If an editor doesn't want to discuss issues in a civilised manner without calling people "jerks" then they should be shown the door. –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support block per
  WP:CIR. This editor seems to be incapable of collaborating with others in a civil manner. -- Dane ^talk
  02:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked for
  WP:NOTHERE. Had to agree, this appears to be a long time coming, and surprised it wasn't done so in 2015. RickinBaltimore (talk
  ) 02:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Broter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also: previous ANI thread.

Two years ago, I started another ANI thread about Broter after he edit warred to insert ridiculously Islamophobic

Since that incident, he has:

• Added
  Robert Spencer ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]), even completely neutering critical sources
• Tried to prove that Muslims want to take over Europe
• Edit warred to link to image hosting sites to share images for
  Everybody Draw Muhammad Day at that article and at Depictions of Muhammad (with no independent sources to establish that they're noteworthy examples) - [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]
• Added an image of Tommy Robinson (activist) to the Islam article as an excuse to post Islamophobic material (he didn't respond my more thoroughly sourced suggestion to link to Mark Twain to the Book of Mormon article for some reason)
• created a (now-deleted) user box advocating a Muslim ban
• Promoted a
  self-published Islamophobic work by Tommy Robinson in the Islam and Islamic terrorism
  articles
• Replacing the standard Quran and Hadith links to link to Quranx.Com, a Quran and Hadith resource created and used by Islamophobes - [33], [34], [35]
• Engaged in a slow and long term edit war to promote the views of authors who claim that Islam is fundamentally a terrorist religion ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52])

The reason I started this thread is that if we look at Portal:Right-wing populism, we'll see that he's restored a deleted section of quotes that contains material like:

• "We have to stop pretending that Islam is merely a religion—it is primarily a totalitarian ideology that aims to conquer the West."
• "Islam is the problem."
• A cherry-picked hadith with Broter's personal emphasis on the words "I have been made victorious with terror."

Now, the first two examples, if done by another user, could be construed as examples of how some right-wing populists use Islamophobia to rally their base. However, the last example has nothing to do with modern politics, its inclusion is just modern Islamophobia. The last example

If he wants to believe that Islam is only a terrorist's religion, he's free to believe that. But

He does other work relating to Mormonism and the Republican party that may be useful to the site, so I'm only going to suggest Broter be topic banned from Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see that between me saying that the quotes are exactly why I'm going to start this thread and me actually starting this thread, Broter removed the quotes, perhaps so he can beg to not be "punished" like he did last time. This is far from the only issue, and his slow edit war at

Robert Spencer (author) are proof that he's not interested in editing Islamic topics neutrally. Ian.thomson (talk

) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edits went well beyond

WP:UNDUE worship. Ian.thomson (talk

) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Broter: What's the meaning behind {{User The pen is mightier than the sword of Islam}}? Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cesdeva: Look at Charlie Hebdo shooting. We should not be afraid of death threats.--Broter (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for further proving you cannot distinguish between Islam and Islamic terrorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cesdeva: You should not denounce a wikipedian because of his userboxes. All my edits on this topic with the exception of the Spencer-article were reverted. But the edits on the Spencer-article are correct.--Broter (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

They were all reverted -- and yet

you kept trying and trying and trying to add the same or similar material. The userboxes in isolation are not why you would be topic banned, but they do provide a Islamophobic context to your edits. Ian.thomson (talk

) 17:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, if almost all of your edits in a topic were reverted, that generally means that your editing in that topic is misguided and/or disruptive, and that you really shouldn't be editing in that topic. Also, please

indent your talk page comments, please. ansh666

17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• (uninvolved comment) You're wrong, Ian.thomson.
  Robert Spencer (author)" but Broters last edit was on 27 November 2017‎. A time-wasting report which lacks credibility and seems designed more for character assassination than out of concern for the encyclopedia, and coming from an editor who recently thought it was OK to call someone else a "crank" in an edit summary. -- Netoholic @
  17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I called a user who was recently blocked under

WP:NOTHERE

for promoting a book on a fringe theory while insisting that he's the only person who knows anything about the topic and that academia knows nothing about the topic -- that last part is the definition of crankhood. Now why would you downplay that when trying to turn this on me?

And how, exactly, would one demonstrate a long term problem without citing past behavior? These are the majority of his edits to Islamic focused topics. He admits that they were largely reverted -- indicating that his edits were against consensus.

And the issue is not that he's properly giving

WP:DUE weight to level-headed criticism of Islam, it's that his activity in Islamic related articles continually presents undue weight on the perspective that there is no difference between Islam and Islamic terrorism -- a bigoted position that no mainstream academic would defend. Ian.thomson (talk

) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NPA doesn't give you the right to use an attack even you're "right". Keep some self-control, and, if you make a mistake and use an attack, definitely don't double down on justification like you're doing here. I believe it relates because it might show a pattern of disrespect for editors that hold what you believe to be contradictory beliefs to your own, such as may be evidence in this poor report. -- Netoholic @
  17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If we (by which I mean you) are going to start

making accusations without evidence, that opens the door to the prospect of suggesting that you're opposed to this topic ban because you believe that Wikipedia isn't far-right enough. Do you really want to go down that road? Ian.thomson (talk

) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think you missed the part where I did provide evidence (see diff above). I don't have a particular opinion as to Wikipedia being anything "enough" other than it being eternally incomplete, per its mission. Are you saying that "right" political beliefs are not "significantly held" viewpoints worthy of fair inclusion? -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You cited a case where the community concurred with my identification of a user as

WP:NOTHERE

, as evidence that for a claim that I start threads to use topic bans on anyone I personally disagree with. Now, if that was the case and it wasn't that I bring to attention any user I see who is not helping the project, then you'd have no trouble finding largely ignored or dismissed threads where I call for topic bans against users with particular view points. Instead, you're going to find that most of the threads I start focus on disruptive behavior and the community (like now) usually agrees with my findings.

And if you're going to twist my words, then you're not arguing with enough good faith to make it worth my while to continue discussing things with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support tban from Islam and topics affecting it, broadly construed Ian.thomson , I've copied the deleted code to the userbox in question here that Broter created here so that others can see it. A picture really is worth a thousand words in this case (cc. CambridgeBayWeather as deleting admin). Anyone who creates the userbox below and then sources edits in articles to FoxNews.com insiders (they tend to allow fringe viewpoints free reign in that particular part of their website), added Xenophobic fear mongering to articles, and even was kind enough to grace us with his own hand drawn image of Muhammad which he added to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day for us is clearly not here to promote a neutral picture of Islam. Heck, I might support an indefinite block here, but I'm willing to try a Tban. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, to clarify my last sentence, I also support a site ban in this case, but have equal preference with a TBAN. My support of the lesser sanction should not be considered opposition to the greater one. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's an entire Gallery on that article - should we TBAN every uploader? Are you implying that the personal support for or against immigration is by itself bannable? Then why is the exact opposite view not also bannable? -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• You will note that every single other picture was taken on 19 or 20 May 2010, the day of the actual event the article is covering, and was transferred from Flickr for depections of the event itself. There was only one that was upload by a Wikipedian 7 years after the fact and not even on the anniversary of the day with the intent [...] to send a message to the islamic terrorists. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• It does say "to the islamic terrorists" right? Not simply "to islam"? Is it an unusual belief to be opposed to terrorism? -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• You're aware, right, that millions of people around the world would find it offensive? The drawing clearly implies Muhammad is a terrorist, and given the context of his other actions, it's not a stretch to say that he views Islam as a whole in a pretty negative light and is here to promote that POV. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is a discussion about his edits, not what you estimate his views are nor your estimate of hypothetical "offense" (after all,
  WP:NOTCENSORED applies). I also note you don't seem to be overly concerned about avoiding "offense" in that you've reproduced his content below. -- Netoholic @
  18:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well, the offense isn't hypothetical, and NOTCENSORED does not mean that you are able to use Wikipedia as a political soapbox to promote views that could rightly be considered prejudiced. It means that if there is a legitimate topic to cover, we don't delete it if it is within our scope. A hand drawn picture of Muhammad by some random guy on the internet 7 years after an event is a
  WP:NOTSOAPBOX violation and shows an intent to push a certain POV. TonyBallioni (talk
  ) 18:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a political soapbox then please explain Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. I am sure that people of opposing views to any of those take offense or might feel they are prejudiced. There is no recent evidence of pushing a POV, and that image was done over a year ago, so what is the urgency now to support a ban? What has he done lately? No evidence presented of recent problems other than one self-reverted edit. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I hope that it exists only to separate the weed from the plants. byteflush _Talk 05:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This user supports a Ban on Muslim immigration.

• Note that the image described above has been deleted from Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and actually I would be OK with a siteban, his contributions indicate that he is here to advance his POV, not to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support siteban - If anyone created a userbox that said "I support a ban on Jewish immigration," they should be equally banned for anti-Semitism. Wikipedia cannot be a platform for the promotion of religious hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I think this point is spot on and I'd go further. The fact (assuming the box quoted above is accurate) that he linked the text "Muslim immigration" to the article List of Islamist terrorist attacks in any context, never mind that of an already unacceptable userbox, is indicative of wilfully dishonest propaganda. It is not expressing an opinion based on facts. It is asserting a false "fact" on the sly. Anything even half as offensive directed at any religious or ethnic group should merit a indefinite block. I've seen antisemites blocked for less (and quite rightly so). This, in itself, is more than enough to eclipse any other good work he might have done. The obvious dishonesty here is enough to render any other edits untrustworthy. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I can verify that the quoted userbox is accurate and you're swaying me on the site ban issue (along with Broter's continued unwillingness or inability to answer questions that would require a basic level of self-reflection that should be required of any editor, as well as his continued disingenuous begging and whining with no actual learning on his part). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Only two diffs from the OP are recent (and one of those was a self-revert of the other), the rest are from 6 months to over 2 years old. Whatever problems this user might have had in the past seem to have tempered. His userpage displays several recent barnstars for his work, of which there is no indication given of any problems. His stated personally-held beliefs should not be used as grounds for a ban, since we would never consider banning the oppositely held beliefs either, and especially as there is no recent indications given which show his beliefs affect his approach to editing. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and would certainly support a siteban. Going through those diffs makes it very clear that there is an agenda, and that there is a long-term problem here. Their reiteration above that the Spencer edits were "correct" shows that it is not a problem that has passed, either. --bonadea contributions talk 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite and broadly construed tban from Islam per others and oppose siteban as stale (pointed out by Netoholic) and because of possibly valuable contributions in other areas. Also, it is likely that the user will continue editing under new names in case of a sitewide ban which would make monitoring him more challenging. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Having a "This user supports a ban on Muslim immigration" is absolutely not a reason for a TBan. Many users here have a "This user hates Donald Trump" userbox and are course not TBanned from Donald Trump-related pages. It is a matter of opinion. I even think that the "This user supports a ban on Muslim immigration" userbox is less offensive for others than "This user hates Donald Trump". If a there is a TBan, it will be for POV-pushing and not for this userbox. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's more complex than that, right? Regardless of my opinions on the political stance behind the userbox, there is a difference between saying "I support a ban on Muslim immigration" and having a template that says that with a picture of a mosque with a no symbol on top of it. We would rightly assume that if someone had a box that said "This user opposes Catholic immigration" and had a picture of the pope with a no symbol through it that they would be promoting a certain point of view that is incompatible with Wikipedia. We'd need to look at their other contributions, but it is not a factor we should just ignore: it provides context. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Why stop at the pope, what about one that strikes through the cross, or that userbox strikes through God or one that strikes through every religion? --Netoholic @ 19:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "I disagree with this particular belief" and "I think that people should be banned from entering a country just because of their religion." That difference is about as big as "I think think bacon is God" and "I don't want to pay Kosher taxes." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support a site ban, or at least a broad, indefinite topic ban - The evidence is quite clear. I am disappointed that Broter is still misusing Wikipedia in this way, even after I warned him more than a year ago: [53]. - MrX 🖋 19:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• support a site ban this person has persistently abused their editing privileges for advocacy for one POV in violation of
  WP:SOAP, which is policy, and that one thing is hateful, which we do not tolerate either.Jytdog (talk
  ) 21:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support broad and indefinite topic ban no objection to site-ban. There is a certain nuance which is often missed when discussing believers in any fundamentalist moralizing religion or other belief structure, particularly in relation to "othering" which leads to violence. Wikipedia, and most public discourse, does not generally deal well with such matters nor should they really be expected to.
  Even if there were an arguable systemic NPOV issue in the topic area (I am not saying there is and I doubt there would be. I simply generally do not read Wikipedia on such topics.)
  sophomoric, in the Greek sense, view of a religion and cultures they are quite obviously clueless about. It is better not to have such contributions here — actually it would be better if we did not have such commentary anywhere but it would also be better if no one of any religion killed innocents for their version of God so… Jbh ^Talk
  21:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban, Oppose site ban. Per Netoholic, I don't think it's fair to indef a user for old POV edits when the user also edits outside of that topic. That being said, I disagree with Netoholic in that I support a TBan for Broter over anything to do with Islam, as they clearly have an opinion that they aren't willing to put aside for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Note that I didn't factor the userbox in this decision, as I believe users should have leeway when it comes to userboxes. I have my own beliefs in my userboxes, and I've seen constructive long-time editors with similar userboxes, so I just don't find it right to judge an editor based on what they might have on their userpage. Nanophosis (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck per User:Eggishorn mentioning the previous ANI thread, which I made the mistake of not looking at. The disingenuous begging from Broter that they are currently repeating here is very telling, and indicates to me that they don't intend to stop the disruptive behavior that landed them here in the first place. I'm rather sympathetic due to their various improvements and additions to portals, but I think an Indefinite block is in order, and if the block is lifted, a TBan on religion would hopefully prevent further issue. Nanophosis (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have contributed very much to Mormonism and to ban me for my contributions for Islam is very harsh. The edits which you all talked about were all deleted material. To ban someone for things which are not even current content on wikipedia is far too harsh. My contributions in other topics are well accepted and I urge you all not to ban me from wikipedia.--Broter (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone knows that my first interest on wikipedia is Mormonism and all other topics are only subtopics.--Broter (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I promise you all to never edit Islam and related topics again. I only want to improve Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

All examples of my misbehavour towards islam are so old. I want to only improve Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)--Broter (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support block or site ban of whatever length admins feel appropriate. On the contrary to the most recent message immediately above, there are examples of misbehavior in this very thread. Complaining of bias against outspoken white supremacists or using a terrorist attack as a excuse for their edits shows they cannot be trusted to understand the most basic and fundamental parts of
  WP:CCPOL. Bargaining that they be allowed to remain to edit on a different religion is no help to their cause. If they can't remain at least slightly neutral on one religion why would they be any less neutral (although, one presumes, in the opposite direction) towards any other? They apparently previously avoided sanctions through disingenuous begging and stated: "I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future." Here we are in the future and they either forgot or ignored that lesson and are not behaving better on the very same topic. To dip into religious verse myself, Matthew 7:20 seems strangely appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
  22:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Broter deserves another chance, a ban would be really too harsh because he confessed his mistakes, therefore, we should accept his excuses and give him a second chance. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

He has "learned" from his mistakes before. He's had a second chance. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he did some mistakes, but who can claim to have never made mistakes, let alone that Broter is far from being a new user. he's also contributed nicely to this encyclopedia.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he's not a new user and contributes elsewhere is why I've called for a topic ban. He's shown that he cannot neutrally edit topics relating to Islam and that he'll just give empty apologies and pretend to back down whenever he gets in trouble. He admits that the majority of his edits are reverted, which is an indication that he should have learned to stop making those kinds of edits by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban/topic ban. Andrevan@ 22:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Islam-related articles, broadly construed. At least. Linking and citing overtly islamophobic works on the main articles regarding Islam and Quran are simply indefensible, and no one who does that should be allowed near the topic again. This is the sort of behavior that could have quickly lead to an indefinite block, so a topic ban is lenient in my opinion. Broter should just accept this and move on - you will still get to edit, just avoid Islam. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban and support TBan. This is clearly not an SPA and many of their contributions are nice. Indef banning would be, IMO, not a good idea. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Ian.thomson: why would you use the term islamophobic instead of say, anti-Islam? For instance, the Associated Press Stylebook stopped using the term in 2012 because they prefer not to be "ascribing a mental disability to someone". It just feels off to use this word for a single editor's actions and then start !voting on bans. --Pudeo (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Islamophobic implies fear, hatred, or prejudice against Muslims in general. "Anti-Islam" could be understood to mean that one is opposed to just the teachings of the religion while still respecting the rights of those who follow the religion (in the same sense I've observed some folks use "anti-Christian" to describe themselves). If "anti-Muslimism" or "Islamoprejudice" were as commonly used as Islamophobia still is commonly used according to the rest of our article on the term, I'd use one of those terms instead. Like

Daemon refers only to a programmed background process. Ian.thomson (talk

) 01:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There are studies that conservatives actually have a stronger disgust reaction to pathogens and outgroups[54] so it's almost never about fear. Disgust or hate maybe. In any case, I still do think it's inappropriate to speculate whether a particular editor is motivated by hate or fear, not least because it's easy to demonstrate a battleground mentality without having to directly use a stigmatizing term. --Pudeo (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Islam, broadly construed. If the editor is using the same kind of garbage sources in articles about Mormonism, then they should be topic banned from religion, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I've not picked through their edits on Mormonism, they are why I've only called for a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• The edits on Islamic terrorism alone are worthy of a block, either per POV or per CIR (edit warring over the insertion of a ridiculous source by a non-notable person). They are clearly trying to make Islam look like some essentially terrorist outfit, as if one were to take the...what are those idiots called, who protest at soldiers' funerals and blame their death on America being gay, as if one were to take them as representative of all of Christianity. So sure, I support a topic ban for Islam in the broadest sense, including anything that reeks of immigration and terrorism. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban The diffs provided at the start of this report display extremely problematic agenda pushing behavior, but most of it comes from 2016 and 2017 and I would have supported a ban six months ago. However, there are only a couple of examples from 2018. If this is a ongoing problem on the same scale as it was last year then I have to ask why are there not more diffs from this year? If there is going to be some sort of sanction then it should be a TBAN at most because he's a prolific editor and there is only evidence of problems in one specific area, and even most of that is not particularly recent. A site ban would punitive and not preventive IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's why I called for a topic ban in the title. I don't know why people are pushing for a site ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, oppose topic ban As others have noted above, the problems this user may have had with the topic was in the past, with no real instances of the same issues. The userbox at their userspace is a non-starter. Do we topic ban atheists (a great number of them really, really hate Christians and think Christianity should be outlawed) from editing articles related to Christianity? Do we topic ban Democrats (a great number of them really, really hate Republicans and think Liberal/Progressive thought is the only correct political ideology) from editing politically Conservative articles? Topic banning would set a really dangerous precedent. Site banning would be incredibly wrong. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  While you make sound points that we should be careful to heed, we would only have a problem with an atheist who hates Christians if they demonstrated they could not edit neutrally. There is plenty of evidence of non-neutral editing here. I don't think you can justify a site ban based on edits made in the last six months, but sometimes a topic ban can be justified if there is a "loss of confidence" in the editor, and that might be the case here. If it has got to the stage where you have to check every single edit an editor makes in a particular area that places an undue burden on other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban or indefinite block - I obviously support a topic ban from Islamic related articles, but I'm assuming that Broter is useful in articles on Mormonism for the same reason he's problematic in articles on Islam (not a comment on Mormonism in general, this is an issue that can be found among adherents of any worldview). For this reason, I'd oppose a topic ban on religion in general, just specifically Mormonism (and if he becomes problematic in articles on other religions, then we can discuss banning him from all religion articles except Christianity). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

DanielRigal's reasoning, combined with Broter's continued refusal/inability to answer questions that demonstrate enough self-reflection to show that a topic ban would be worthwhile, leave me more open to a site ban, though I'm not !voting that way yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBan and / or indef block: these edits are recent: 23 May 2018 and 31 May 2018 and obviously islamophobic. It also appears that this has been an on-going issue, per prior AN discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The edits are the addition of quotations which can be seen as Islamaphobic (some of the quotes definitely are, but not all of them - more than one is talking about Islamic terrorist acts) - the statements/writings are of others, not the editor in question. How can you say the edits are Islamaphobic when the editor didn't write the words? That's like saying someone who edits the David Duke article and places racist quotes from Duke in the article is a racist. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If someone was spamming David Duke's article with extended racist quotes cited w/o context to Duke's own writings, that could be perceived as an extension of someone's racist beliefs. But we are not deadling not an isolated incident here anyway... K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support broad TBan or Indef block, which ever finds the most support. Not someone we need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

All my edits to improve the

There's a difference between all edits being accepted, and no one noticing that an article has been filled with puffery. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I got several awards for my work on Portals. Look at my userpage.--Broter (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I find it funny that you're begging to keep something, without addressing, let alone denying, the very point you are being charged with. That alone should give pause to those who are voting against a topic ban. You're not denying you're anti-Muslim, or that you can't tell the difference between Islam and terrorism, or that you have a POV that makes it impossible for you to edit neutrally on that topic. I'm not sure if I should appreciate your honesty or be saddened by this bigotry. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The authors and intellectualls which I promoted do not say that all muslims were terrorists. Furthermore support for Donald Trump does not make someone an islamophobe.--Broter (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No one (except for you, just now) has brought up your politic views, this is entirely about your views on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Based on the initial diffs this is necessary, and Broter appears to have semi-voluntarily agreed to it. It would be useful for an admin to determine whether they added the Islam quotes on May 24, or simply moved them from (now-deleted) subpages such as
  π, ν
  ) 04:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@

Power~enwiki: I took a look and Broter was the creator and sole contributor to Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes. The page was created in 2016 and updated over the course of two years. ansh666

20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of the Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes thing, everything was long ago. Nobody wanted me to be banned. All this stuff was so long ago, I do not think a topic ban is necessary.--Broter (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The "it was a long time ago" argument really doesn't counter "this is a long-term problem." It kinda proves the point. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam per all of the above. Not sure about siteban - if TBan doesn't pass, weak oppose to site ban. The editor can be productive in other areas, but only if they remain a fair distance away from Islam-related articles. byteflush _Talk 05:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, support siteban Frankly, portals are doing well enough that we do not really need to put up with this sort of nonsense, regardless of what contributions this user has made. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed, but would support any other ban/sanction which has majority support. I am astounded that some people have opposed without even reading the 2015 ANI linked at the outset of this report. What did he say then? "I urge the administrator who deals with this section to show mercy. This is the only incident, I am involved with. I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future". Quite clearly he did not and has been slowly but consistently pushing the envelope ever since. Note that he refused to consider or discuss the highly skewed, Islamophobic nature of the quotes he had installed on Portal:Right-wing populism until he was brought to this ANI, after which he deleted the whole quote section. Trust me, without a topic ban, he'll soon be back with more. He's had his "second chance". The last thing Wikipedia needs is Broter continuing to edit in this area. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To editor Voceditenore: he refused to consider or discuss the highly skewed, Islamophobic nature of the quotes he had installed on Portal:Right-wing populism until he was brought to this ANI - On this point I believe you are completely wrong and the evidence will bear it out:

• 15:34 - Ian.thomson posted about these quotes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals (which pinged Broter).
• 16:22- Broter reverted himself.
• 16:28 - Ian.thomson posted this ANI and contacted Broter.

This timeline clearly shows Broter realized his mistake as soon as he got a ping about it and moved swiftly to correct it himself before this ANI. I am sure that he would have done the same if Ian or someone else had simply posted on his talk page and given a warning. This discussion of a TBAN is based on flimsy, stale evidence that Ian.thomson posted AFTER the situation had already resolved itself. -- Netoholic @ 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're leaving out that I announced that I said I was going to start this ANI thread. And the disingenuous begging from the last one. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, Netoholic, "he realized his mistake" after Ian.Thompson threatened to take him to ANI. It's splitting hairs, frankly. He should not have needed that threat. He needs a topic ban or he will keep pushing the envelope more and more, hiding the evidence when he's challenged, and sneaking it back later when he thinks things have blown over. I continue to strongly support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The quotes were not by myself. They were by Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and so on.--Broter (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You put in a cherry-picked Hadith that has nothing to do with modern politics, which explains why so many of the quotes you selected were condemning Islam (instead of just elaborating on modern politics). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Broter, the fact that the quotes at Portal:Right-wing populism were not by you is immaterial. Out of the 12 quotations, 10 specifically attacked Islam. Eight were from right-wing figures who have said a lot of things on a lot of subjects. Why choose only Islam? Worse, the criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali doesn't belong in that portal at all. She is most emphatically not a right-wing populist. Ditto Wafa Sultan's quote. Then to top it all off the final quote is a hadith with your personal bolding on the words "I have been made victorious with terror." Again entirely unrelated to right-wing populism, unless you're claiming that Mohamed is a right-wing populist. It is blindingly obvious to any neutral observer what that quotations section was meant to do. The fact that you only removed it after the threat of an ANI report and are still defending it here speaks volumes. I continue to strongly support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban. That's just OTT, given the otherwise productive contributions. A specific solution (tban) exists. Cesdeva ^(talk) 11:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

From the lead of the article Right-wing populism:"In Europe, right-wing populism is an expression used to describe groups, politicians and political parties generally known for their opposition to immigration,[1] mostly from the Islamic world[2] and in most cases Euroscepticism.[3]" --Broter (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in trouble for what other people said about Islam. The people who accuse me of wrongdoing should recognice that this people attacked Islam and not Muslims in their quotes. For them to criticise Islam is within the law.--Broter (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Broter: Let's reverse the situation here. Let's say an atheist user kept adding material to Christian articles about how Christianity is inherently a religion of persecution and warfare... edit warred to include such material... admits that that material was reverted... had previously promised to stop engaging in that sort of behavior... added "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" to the communism portal... and also added a dozen other negatives quotes about Christianity that largely have nothing to do with communism, with the excuse "but those speakers are communist" -- would you not see the necessity of topic banning such an individual from articles relating to Christianity? If they argued "but I'm useful in articles on LeVayan Satanism," would that excuse their edits to Christianity?

Imagine if a user (who had previously promised not to engage in this sort of behavior) kept edit warring to add material (citing explicitly anti-Mormon sources) calling Joseph Smith a treasure-hunting occultist, kept adding material about possible relationships between Mormon leaders and multi-level marketing schemes, and added an out-of-context Smith quote to, say, Portal:Organized Labour with that editor's own emphasis to try to portray Smith as out to screw over the working man or something, along with a dozen other anti-Mormon quotes from vaguely left-wing individuals... Again, can you honestly pretend that a topic ban would not be necessary? Would you really buy "I'm sorry, I'll do better," when they said that before doubling down on the same behavior? Would "but my edits to Pentecostalism are good!" as an excuse?

I'm not bringing up those examples as a suggestion for article/portal changes -- I'm bringing them up so you can reflect on how your answers would relate to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and so you try to understand why you're really "in trouble." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hadith can also be seen at Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:220. I showed the entire quote and it is not forbidden to cite Muhammad.--Broter (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban per Jytdog, with a topic ban from Islam, broadly construed, as second choice. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
• Support TBAN based on the egregious diffs above, not sure on site ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the quotes section myself and the other stuff was not accepted anyway. So I think this is not a big problem.--Broter (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, if one of the users in the examples I pinged you in made those same arguments, would you really buy them? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your appreciation of the size of the problem, @Broter:, is not a useful contribution to the discussion. It is entirely unsurprising that you don't think it is a big problem. In fact, that's why it is a problem and why we are having this discussion in the first place. Your refusal to either see or admit that this problem is the very same one you promised two years ago not to repeat is the reason sanctions are being considered by your peers. You should have already known not be editing in this area at all. You selected the quotes and by doing so, assembled a collage of the words of other people to give the biased message you wanted that page to send: that all Muslims are terrorists. You are responsible for that message and you can't blame it on the "other people" you intentionally picked. You only reverted when you were threatened with reporting here, so it was in no way voluntary. This is all recent and ongoing behavior. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN broadly construed at this time per cogent reasons well illustrated with diffs above. Will support escalating to siteban if the disruption continues elsewhere. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"that all Muslims are terrorists" was never the message of the quote section. I quoted Muhammad at Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:220 but this is a completly different matter. It is adequat to criticise the islamic prophet without being accused of being anti-muslim.--Broter (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be possible to criticise Jesus/Muhammad without being accused to be anti-christian/anti-muslim.--Broter (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And if someone added a dozen quotes to

WP:NPOV

besides blocking otherwise productive editors.

Your best bet to get out of this without any further trouble is to explicitly and voluntarily announce that you will accept to a permanent topic ban from all pages relating to Islam, to be appealed only by community consensus, with one year between each appeal. The community is going to topic ban you from Islam pages one way or another, but a lot more people are calling for a site ban than even I'd like. I don't think you should be site banned, but the surest way to make sure that doesn't happen is to agree to the topic ban as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban or at least t-ban - Sure, you can claim "those are not my words", but you applied those words in bundles to misconstrue Islam as a terrorist religion. Some of those opposed may say "what about the Atheists" or "what about the Democrats", and they should be ashamed of themselves. Hate is hate, no matter what the source is. Once it spews onto Wikipedia, it becomes a problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. POV editing is a real problem in WP. POV editors who ran into an ANI in the past, and survived, can simply attempt to game the system by guarding themselves, just enough, not to run into another ANI just as has happened in this case, except in this case the POV the second time around was, again, too much to be ignored. Taking the position that having just a couple of recent POV editing cases is somehow OK, in itself shows a lack of understanding the NPOV policy and, in a sense, makes such commentators pro-POV supporters themselves. There's no place in WP for POV, and POV editing continues to be a real problem in WP. Far more editors have left WP due to POV pushers than due to personal attacks. There's also a real problem with anyone who believes that it's OK to have sources that are not reliable, as Broter has been editing, as long as he editor consistently sources his unreliable sources. You won't find that in the
  WP:P&G anywhere. Then there is the question of, why a site ban instead of a topic ban? Because when we only topic ban an editor who is an anti-Islam (or anti-anything) POV pusher, we leave the door open for that same editor to start POV pushing of Pro-Christian, pro-Jew, pro-atheist, etc., articles. So the POV pushing doesn't end, it shifts. The net effect is that the community has accomplished little, if anything at all if just a topic ban is implemented. Mercy11 (talk
  ) 17:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree to be topic banned from all pages relating to Islam. My main work on wikipedia is Mormonism anyway.--Broter (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: If the consensus here is for a topic ban on Islam (broadly construed), this needs to be formally logged, despite Broter's apparent acceptance above. We saw what happened the last time (2015), when he made assurances and manifestly failed to adhere to them over the next three years. Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic and site ban. Even a quick look at their contributions, the evidence above, their obviously racist-supporting userboxes etc shows that they are a True Believer. The point of sanctions/restrictions is to a)prevent disruption, b)educate the editor into what is acceptable (behaviour on wikipedia) with a goal of eventually removing the restrictions. While a topic ban will prevent disruption related to Islam, there is zero chance it will affect their opinion or viewpoint in any way. And long experience shows that editors like this go on to cause disruption in other areas. We will be back here in less than 6 months because they are being disruptive about Mexicans, Jews or whatever else has annoyed the right-wingnuts. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: We are not here to "educate people" or change their beliefs, opinions or viewvpoints. We are only here to develop and protect this online project. Sanctions are instututed to prevent disruption to the project and not as a punishment for someone's beliefs. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• See inserted bracted comment. I think meaning may have been lost. I meant educated as to what is acceptable on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"I meant educated as to what is acceptable on wikipedia." I have to be honest, following your comment above, "right wing nuts", what I see you saying is, "...what [kind of person] is acceptable on wikipedia." A site ban will set the ridding-Wikipedia-of-undesirables-who-don't-accept-unspoken-political-groupthink precedent, for certain. And with that, the "right wing nuts" will be on notice. Chilling, for certain. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that all right-wing editors are Islamophobic. Got it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not being serious. There are nuts on the fringes of all political extremes, but the current climate has given those on the far-right the impression that people are obligated to listen to their hatred. Comparable figures on the left usually assume we're a tool of capitalism/institutional racism/patriarchy and refuse to use mainstream sources that are "likewise" capitalist/racist/patriarchial -- usually resulting in them leaving or someone blocking them long before they end up at ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site-ban or TBAN: Given the substantial evidence of an ongoing
  WP:NOTHERE situation, I personally doubt that the TBAN would do more than delay the inevitable as the user is likely to move their polemic approach to peripheral areas and end up back here in short order. So, given the depth of the issues here, I can support a site ban as my first choice. At a minimum a TBAN clearly needs to be instituted. Snow ^{let's rap}
  09:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, but oppose site ban and oppose block. From review of Broter's contribs, this editor edits heavily and productively in other areas, therefore a site ban would result in a loss of productive contributions. A limited block, as an alternative to a site ban/indefinite block, would be inappropriate because blocks are meant to stop an immediate acute problem. A topic ban is clearly warranted because of a long-term pattern of POV pushing, editing warring and other issues in Islam related articles. Since Broter accepts the idea of a topic ban, this should resolve the problem satisfactorily for everyone.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, oppose site ban Wikipedia tolerates, to a certain degree, a pretty diverse community of editors with a broad range of beliefs and political leanings, but it should not, and cannot, tolerate editors who let those same beliefs and leanings blatantly taint their editing. Broter obviously has a strong, and negative, view of Islam which they have allowed to taint their editing in those articles, so a topic ban is a reasonable sanction. I don't see that evidence has been produced of the same sort of behaviour in articles outside of Islam related topics, so a site ban at this point would not be reasonable in my book. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. I suspect a site ban will inevitably follow, but all the issues raised above would be addressed with a topic ban. Fish+Karate 14:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at minimum. His contributions re: Islam are clearly not constructive. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Memills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Evolutionary psychology:. User is topic banned from editing anything relating to mens rights, and was found in violation of that ban on several occasions, being outright blocked for a period of 12 months for editing on sex differences in psychology. The editor has now begun editing anew with a series of edits on the evolutionary psychology page surrounding the topic of "coercive mating" and "rape".

Ping previously acting administrators:

First, I'm sure that CFCF understands that a one year topic ban that was imposed in 2015 has expired.

Even so, the next step will probably be to assert that I am in violation of an *indefinite* topic ban based on this: