Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User:Rjwilmsi's userpage appears to have been duplicated by another user, User:Barstern[edit]

Barstern CU-blocked by Bbb23. –Davey2010Talk 15:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There may be some problem here - A newly registered user by the name of Barstern has copy-pasted Rjwilmsi's userpage word for word. If they were a returning user, which they are saying they are I would say that they declare it on their user page, but I'm not seeing it. Any admins about to help, I am not well versed in these types of policies/guidelines. Thanks Nightfury 14:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in the process of doing this. Regards. --Barstern (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have nothing to do with User:Barstern, so if they are a returning user that is unrelated to me. Rjwilmsi 15:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lihaas and vandalism in Arkady Babchenko[edit]

I am astonished to see such edits [1] [2] from an established user, but this is, well, vandalism. Previously in the same article they removed info that the subject got a literary prize and took it to AfD as non-notable (the article was speedy kept in several hours). Could we do smth with this pls? Given my past ANI experience, I do not expect to get them blocked, but this disruption must be stopped ASAP. Not going to AIV for obvious reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand his argument, that these sources are so out of date that even the titles are known to be false. Whether that renders the entire article unusable is a matter for discussion. So I wouldn't call that vandalism, but certainly his insistence that his version should stand during the discussion is very very problematic. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am absolutely astonished that such a established user would resort to WP:NPA in accusations of vandalism.
While I am having a very civil discussion at User_talk:Lopifalko#Arkady_Babchenko regarding the content, I have also asserted the right to WP:BOLDly add content, while others also have rights to dispute per WP:BRD. The WP:ONUS is then on getting consensus through discussion not accusing people or coming here without even attempting a discussion on the talk page (of which I told him to do so). Secondly, despite the fact that there is a right revert and seek sconsensus, I have still maintained the content on the page AND in the second link above maintained the sources while only hiding them in the interim.
I took it to AFd it was closed (which should have been at least 24 horus if not 7 days), I did not dispute that. If you look at my first edit of mine on the page, you can see how I took the BOLD steps to organize and clean the article up. (no idea what relevance the Afd has to do with this, particularly in light of how I initiated the cleaning up of the article).
I am merely asking, both on the OP's talk page and here, to discuss and gain consensus first, nor am I seeking to remvoe the content (while keeping the disputed sources hidden). Why the ego to have it up as one wants and not attempt to discuss as ive requested? In fact the point of a fact tag IS to improve on sources, or at the very least have a second source.Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: How is "my version" to stand the issue? If it was "my version" I would keep the content out, and upon that revert, even the source. On the contrary, I have kept the content and even the source n the editing box as an accomodation. (the latter being hidden from readership in the interim). I have also praised the editor of the civil discussion for his valuable additions. Is that problematic? Who is being "problamtic" w/ NPAs (both in summary and this section title (after notifying him on his talk page and he replied that h e would come here instead of discussing, or even for tht matter apologizing)) and spurning requests for discussion to resolve the issue amicably? Did I sulk when the AFd was closed?Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring is a problem, whether you are adding content, removing content, or hiding content. But the problem I am referring to is your insistence that you get to decide what the article looks like while the discussion is taking place. But if you are done edit warring, then that is no longer an issue for the time being. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, one of the sources was BBC, and it was not outdated for the facts it sourced. I do not see how this is good-faith behavior. What better quality sources do you want if you do not accept BBC?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The discussion had not been initiated even. See the civil discussion where I encouraged him to tag to get more people to the discussion. Then I was the one who took the initiative to add the tags. I was not reverting back. I was trying to initiate discussion by doing so on user talk page, altering the content so as to both encourage constructive change 'and appease them with the content. As you can see on the links above, I initially removed, was reverted, then kept content, then added tags...all in an attempt to resolve disputes. The LAST thig I did was to have it my way.
@ymblanter, is this not a case that yu could have discussed on the talk page? I have issued my concerns with thison the far more civil Lopifalko's talk page w/o either of us resorting to attacks. Why the ego? As for what do you want that is a discussion for the talk page...not ANI, which is what I was seeking.
If the facts are reliable then one can easily find another source that is not outdated. Hence the fact tag. So prove, then, that sources can verify the facts with articles that are reliable (even if the the same source, as I mentiond in discussion link above). Not a damn hard thing to do iat all. I'm out. That's all I sought and was easy to resolve w/o this. Good night/good morning, where you are.Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You have seven reverts on that article, today. 1234567. That last one is you hiding content, but that doesn't make it magically not part of an edit war. You were also removing some of this same content yesterday. Dude, you've been blocked enough times, you know how this works. I don't care which part of BRD you're on, whether the other two guys are editing the talk page, or how unreliable you think the sources are. Any admin could block you right now. If you don't get that, you're going to have a bad time. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop edit-warring, stop removing properly sourced material and start discussing at the talk page then. The article was created three days ago, you have already triesd to apply BRD to it by nominating it for deletion - and failed badly. Now you trying instead to remove sentence by sentence does not matter whether they are well-sourced or badly sourced. Just stop it. If you have issue with some sources, raise them at the talk page, there are enough people watching the article, and you will have a swift response.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Good, hopefully we can close this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri revert at Peter Wilby[edit]

User:Kashmiri (talk) has performed a revert here on the article about the British journalist Peter Wilby. He claims of my edits: "Rv tendentious editing. Minor incident in an editor's career, no need to make it into 75% of the article". In fact he has reverted my expansion of Wilby's period as editor of the New Statesman (1998–2005), a significant part of his career. For reasons which are easily ascertained (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George Galloway) I do not believe merely discussing this issue on the talk page will resolve this issue. Not only because of the above case, but because of the low level of editing which the Peter Wilby article receives.

While there are probably more sources which could be used to expand an outline of Peter Wilby's career before 1998, User:Kashmiri's revert is a unilateral decision which which was taken without any discussion. The sourcing for Wilby's article was significantly expanded in my series of edits. Philip Cross (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Unless anyone has failed to notice, this contributor Philip Cross is under arbitration discussion for related isses. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why this content dispute is here rather than at the talk page (where two editors have expressed concern with PC's edits, and PC has not responded) or WP:BLPN. The most likely administrative outcome is a WP:BOOMERANG against Philip Cross. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I raised it here because it is more a case of blanking a substantial part of a properly sourced article rather than a content dispute. Admittedly I was not clear enough above. Philip Cross (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Philip Cross: I disagreed with your "expansion" of the article with so much of he-said-she-said material, nearly all of which actually potrayed the article subject in a negative light (the allegations of the subject's "row" with Odone that both parties denied it ever existed, a CHERRYPICKED quote that the subject is "either dull or silly", ad nauseam focus on the cover incident, etc.). In my view, it displayed a WP:BIAS, which incidentally is also being discussed at AN and, likely, ArbCom; was below the quality required for Wikipedia; and so reverting it did not put me in the wrong. I encourage you to read WP:BRD. Also, you did not engage in the discussion on the article's Talk page nor you tried to reach out to me directly but are posting straight at ANI. No further comment. — kashmīrī TALK 20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Philip, are you aware that extensive use of primary sources is problematic in most situations? Report what the secondary sources say; primary sources, like news reports, necessarily lack a sense of what is long-term important. Since encyclopedia articles are based on what secondary sources say, if you can't provide evidence that the subject has been covered (or solid evidence that it will be covered) by secondary sources, you're making an original assertion that it has or will be covered — no adding things based on your own opinions or research, please. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There is certainly something going on - User: Kashmiri has now reverted the entire addition 3 times, using different arguments each time, including some of the most specious edit summaries I've seen. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

page swap of portals[edit]

Pageswap of portals.png

A few moments ago, I closed an RM discussion regarding portals. I have included the screenshot of the error that I received. How should this move be performed? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

pinging Amakuru, and BD2412. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: I haven't seen that one before, but I suspect it's because you're trying to move 477 subpages all in one go. Do you know what it means by a "swap"? What operation are you doing exactly? (Also, I'm not sure WP:ANI is the correct venue for this dicussion... perhaps WT:MOVE or somewhere like that)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I would have guessed VPT, myself. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 22:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen that before, either. bd2412 T 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's an error message from the script, not an error message with moving. Admins will still be able to do G6s, and pagemovers should still be able to do manual round-robins. I would talk to the maintainer of the pageswap script about why that is the case first, though. There might be a good reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: Yes, the script can handle only 100 subpages i think. Once I moved around 42 subpages when DYSK had moved a an entire wikiproject. During that incident, I had communication with Andy (creator/maintainer of the script), the script cant handle a lot of subpages. @Amakuru: Yes, basically it is like A to tempA, B to A, and then tempA to B. Even with the increased page move rates for page movers, I think that would be a lot of pages to move (semi)automatically. —usernamekiran(talk)

─────────────────────────@Amakuru, TonyBallioni, and BD2412: We cant use the script (neither page movers nor sysops) for such a huge number, not sure about the sysops though. Thats why I came here originally: how should we handle these moves? Is there any work-around? any tips-tricks? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no workaround. Admins can use AWB to move the pages, but for non-admins the pages just have to be moved individually with Special:MovePage if there are more than 100 subpages. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I take that back, there is a workaround but only if you think about it beforehand and don't cock it up. Specifically by suppressing redirects, then you can recreate the original page after the move, move it to the new location (moving 100 subpages as you go) ad infinitum until you're done. Of course, you'll then have to restore the original (now-deleted) page at the final target, but it would save someone potentially having to move 450 gorram subpages (even with AWB it's tedious as hell). Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Miss Kyrgyzstan at Miss Universe 2018[edit]


I am in a dispute with the User:NewYorkActuary due to the editions made by me in the article Miss Universe 2018.

The user insists that the references used by him to argue that Miss Bergimay Karybekova will represent Kyrgyzstan in Miss Universe 2018 are valid and clear; the references do not even agree on whether the girl won a contest or was designated. The user, even, brought a fake Facebook page of the Miss Universe Organization (of course, by mistake). In my case, I have given arguments to maintain that this information is a possible hoax, and I have erased that information, arguing and asking for patience, because if the information is true, it will come to light. I have tired of explaining why we should not take the inclusion of references so lightly, but the user seems to be infatuated with the inclusion of this delegate.

This has caused the user to report me under rule 3RR, instead of seeking a third opinion. The editor who answered your complaint is User:EdJohnston who has only threatened to block me, and has not been able to intervene in the conflict; he discuss with me on his own page, without resorting to mine.

Both insist that there is a consensus to keep the delegate of Kyrgyzstan on the list of contestants, when, from any perspective, a discussion of two people does not form a consensus.

On the other hand, I have warned both of them that I do not have a domain of the English language, but both ignore it and do not really explain to me what I am doing wrong.

Any wrong action on my part, I accept it, as soon as I am really told what I did; but it is clear that the other two users have proceeded in a partial and capricious manner.

I need someone to intervene to clarify all this. --Alex Duilius (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alex Duilius reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Alex Duilius Warned) is in order. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are some more links on the prior history of this dispute:
  • Alex wants to remove the entry for Miss Kyrgyzstan from the list of entrants for Miss Universe 2018, apparently because he doesn't believe the sources. They include a web site called and the India Times. People on the talk page who are familiar with the Miss Universe contest claim that these sites are reliable. Alex was reported at AN3 because he was warring to remove the entry for Kyrgyzstan. The punch lins is probably this message I left for Alex: "..Your arguments at Talk:Miss_Universe 2018#Kyrgyzstan indicate you are either not familiar with Wikipedia policy, or that you disagree with it. If you plan to edit here, you are expected to follow our policy regarding sources..."
  • User:NeilN closed the AN3 as 'warned' based on the message I left for Alex. This ANI post appears to be an appeal of the AN3 closure, but on grounds which are not clear to me. I am guessing that he wants an admin to make a 'content ruling' that the Kyrgyzstan entry should be removed from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment from NewYorkActuary. Alex Duilius has an unusual edit history -- edits take place in only a few months each year and they are almost always to the article on the then-current edition of Miss Universe. This suggests to me that the topic is of singular interest to Alex and that he has likely developed a good personal knowledge of it. And this, in turn, leads me to think that Alex truly has a good-faith belief that he is right and that everyone else is wrong. But this good-faith belief will not be sufficient to overcome some of Wikipedia's peculiar rules and processes. Of foremost relevance is our notion of "verifiability, not truth". If at any point in this disagreement, Alex came up with a reliable source that contradicted the existing identifications of Kyrgyzstan's delegate, the discussion would have proceeded along a very different line. But no such source has been forthcoming. Another of Wikipedia's peculiarities is its distaste for resolving disagreements via edit-warring. I continue to encourage Alex to resolve this matter via one of Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures (perhaps WP:DRN). I hope that he will take that route. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Related but unrelated - that whole section is a minefield and year-in-year-out subject to sourcing issues, crystal ballery, edit warring etc. Getting rid of the whole section may be an even better approach but that's not a subject for ANI ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  03:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we just please drop all beauty pageant coverage, please? EEng 19:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Moral support to drop pageant coverage. Blackmane (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
If we can now get the immoral support we may actually achieve something. EEng 00:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"Governor Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking person!" "That is not enough, madam, we need a majority." --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User Monsore[edit]

Hi, Monsore is edit warring in the Al-Biruni article, trying to change the ethnicity of this scholar while a consensus has been reached on the relevant talk page. I spent hours explaining them why, but they keep trying to edit the article according to their POV : [3], [4]. I warned them and took the time to welcome them (as a new user) and explained them some Wiki rules : [5], but with no positive result. Our discussion ended up with this comment of Monsore : [6] which is, according to me, an obvious case of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. Then i asked Wario-Man for an insight : [7]. Could please an admin deal with this case ? Thank you very much. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, consensus was not reached here and the content of the article is still under dispute as far as I am concerned. Relevant sources have been cited and changes are still being refused to be made. As such, an admin should take a look at this and make the proper corrections or categorize this as a disputed article that future readers should take caution on when reading. ThanksMonsore (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no discussion between you two on the articles talk page at all. Neither of you have even made an attempt! Take this content dispute back there and hash it out. (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi IP user, thanks for your comment, but please take a look at the diffs i posted above, the user Monsore is a very new user and he started the discussion on his own talk page instead of Talk:Al-Biruni. Do you think it's possible to discuss anymore with someone who says : "You personal feelings have nothing to do with reality and facts. I've provided relevant reliable sources, multiple actually and you still refuse to make the change. Noted. Yes, they were "failed" Iranian attempts. Just because maps show pretty colors that include certain areas in those pretty colors doesn't mean the region was "invaded" and "conquered". It is also a possibility that the Pashtuns in the region didn't care what you want to write in your delusional history books and just keep doing what they want, while Iranian historians lie about reality, because it seems like Iranians like to draw all sorts of delusional colors and maps and history books. Noted. If corrections are not made, I will attempt to mark this and other articles as "disputed" or something. Thanks bud." to you ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Monsore: The content of article is not disputed (his origin and background are well-sourced). Your first edit[8] is clear POV and disruptive changes. Your 2nd attempt[9] is ignoring this discussion: Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_4#Consensus_for_the_lead_section:_older_revision_(his_ethnicity). You are free to open a new section on Talk:Al-Biruni and discuss your concerns there. But your comments on your talk page show signs of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:POV stuff. Also it seems you have never clicked on that Iranian link. Did you read it or not? It's an ethno-linguistic term and it's not about being from Iran. Before opening a new section on article talk page, read all previous discussions and cited sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
This is precisely what i said them on their talk page : [10] ... but the user ignored my comment and kept going on with his POV.---Wikaviani (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be good if an admin clarifies some basic WP rules and guidelines for him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I was welcomed and then confused with inconsistent jargon on how things get edited on Wikipedia. One minute wikipedia is not a reliable source of information when I provide references from it to prove my points. The next minute others are providing me links from wikipedia to prove their points. This is inconsistent non-sense [11]. If it were consistent I wouldn't have any issues. I stated this, I read through all references provided. I don't feel that my edits are POV, my references are being ignored and the majority of the references discussing Al-Biruni's origins refer to him as PERSIAN, not Iranian. There is a difference. Keeping it as Iranian is misleading to the reader. If these changes are not made, than the article is under dispute as far as I am concerned. As such, he should be referred to as a Persian scholar, not an Iranian scholar, because that is what the current references on his page refer to him as (completely ignoring all other sources I've provided). I've read the references, I question whether you guys have though.Monsore (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I reopen that discussion on his page? What is the proper channel or source code etc?Monsore (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, you missed the part where you blatantly insult Iranian academics and deny historical facts : [12], let alone the fact that since you're a new user, you should listen to more experienced users instead of edit warring with them, Wario-Man, me and other contributors edited the article with "Iranian" and i explained you patiently and politely some Wiki rules and the fact that being an ethnic Persian Pashtun, Tajik, etc... implies being an ethnic Iranian (and also Wario-Man did so above). As to Wikipedia, i already explained you that you cannot use Wikipedia to source Wikipedia but for our readers, Wikipedia is a great Encyclopedia and is widely used worldwide.Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain to me if being an ethnic Kurd implies being an ethnic Iraqi, an ethnic Iranian, and ethnic Syrian or an ethnic Turk? So that we can apply this reasoning to Pashtuns and Tajiks. — kashmīrī TALK 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure, take a look there : Iranian peoples, to spare you the trouble of reading the whole article, i quote : " Modern Iranian peoples include the Baloch, Gilaks, Kurds, Lurs, Mazanderanis, Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamiris, Persians, Tajiks, the Talysh, Wakhis and Yaghnobis". Also, FYI, "Iraqi" is not an ethnicity, it's a citizenship. You're welcome if you have any other question.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
To answer your question, as i already told you on your talk page ((see [13]), the right place for a thread about an article is the article's talk page, i.e Talk:Al-Biruni, but again, as Wario-Man explained you above, Biruni's ethnicity is not disputed.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP addresses registered to the University Of South Florida[edit]

Article is protected - no further action is needed at this time. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings all. I've just filed a WP:RFPP report for an article (Judy Genshaft) and I noticed that the incoming vandalism all seems to be coming from IP addresses registered to the University of South Florida, specifically the 2607:FE50:0:8209:*.*.*.* range and I don't know who deals with school blocks so I was unsure where to raise this query. If I'm in the wrong place, please redirect me. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • 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 WP:AIV, where we commonly issue longer-term {{schoolblock}}s as needed. Swarm 22:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IBAN violation?[edit]

I am closing this as discussion has died down, and it is only encouraging negative interaction that is not permitted by the IBAN. Further discussion of promising draft tag use can continue to take place on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talkcontribs) 02:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 WT:CSD#Request for comment: Promising drafts but omitted the one editor (Legacypac) who explicitly opposed it. This stinks of deliberate weaponization of the interaction ban. —Cryptic 19:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Cryptic: What else was I supposed to do? I am not allowed to ping them. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Not ping everybody else. —Cryptic 20:09, 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)

I monitor all pages tagged with {{promising draft}} at User:Godsy/Promising drafts. "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 did not revert or mention Legacypac's actions (i.e. I did not break the interaction ban). Calliopejen1 was due a notification that the templates they placed were no longer present and Uanfala was already largely aware. However, this edit by Legacypac is clearly a direct response to the question I put forth at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request for comment: Promising drafts (this other edit by them was in the section I started; both are especially inappropriate by their own standards if this complaint they made at xaosflux's talk page is taken into account). Suggest boomerang for any of those reasons. A draftspace and userspace case at arbcom may be due because of all the continued squabbling (which is ridiculous). Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts was only started because various editors refuse to respect community consensus (on a side note, I merely started it as a discussion, another editor converted it into a request for comment). Lastly, I would like to reaffirm that I have never stalked or harassed Legacypac and the community has never come to that conclusion (I am also not, and have never been, the antagonizer).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • 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 Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. power~enwiki (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 boomerang resulted in: The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving "any type of draft content into the mainspace". This would be broadly interpreted as moving articles that were created by anyone, including themselves, from Draft:, User: or any other space, to main space. Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. No community action was taken against me at that time. Legacypac's block log is a different story than mine. Legacypac needs to quit rehashing the past and WP:DROPTHESTICK. They have a miniscule amount of respect for process and community rules as is exemplified by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban between Legacypac and Baseball Bugs proposed (see this comment in particular by NinjaRobotPirate) and a plethora of examples that can be shown from the past (I will not lower myself and push the community's patience by listing them all here). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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 (TALKCONT) 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 (TALKCONT) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring and BLP violations across several related articles[edit]

Discussion has been started on the relevant noticeboard. Will keep eyes on the articles in the meantime. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cluebot NG keeps making out i am vandalising peoples working repeatedly[edit]

We've found out that Cluebot isn't perfect, and there doesn't appear to be anything else to be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cluebot NG keeps on saying I am vandalising work when I am entirely innocent of this, and keeps reverting the work to its original state could someone correct this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcs ylz (talkcontribs) 18:42, 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)
User:Ian.thomson - I respectfully disagree with your criticism of the participating editors, although that may not matter, because I happen to have the eccentric view that Do not bite, while a good guideline, should not be considered a dogma, and that judgment should be used about it, and I further think that some (not all) experienced editors tie themselves into knots to avoid being 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.
Lcs ylz I'm sorry if ClueBot NG's warnings offended or scared you - that isn't the intention. ClueBot NG is 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Nothing more to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pjl u2 is NOTHERE[edit]

Indef'd per WP:NOTHERE. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The edit warrior Pjl u2 has stated that my father is the Devil [16] and that I am a godless communist [17]. I suggest indeffing per WP:NOTHERE. He/she also stated There NEVER was "A Bible" until The Catholic Church decided by Proper Authority what The Bible IS. benji nyet&yahoo is an R1a Y-DNA Haplogroup ARYAN descendant. Those ARYAN Antichrists have No SAY, and the Godless TROLL Tgeorgescu shall Eternally regret it's wikipedia Trollings [18]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Broter continues to push an Islamophobic POV -- time for a topic ban[edit]

Broter is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. In addition, Broter is indefinitely banned from making any edits related to the topic of Islam, broadly construed. These are separate editing restrictions, so if Broter's site ban is lifted, the TBAN will remain in effect unless lifted by a specific consensus. Swarm 21:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 WP:OR, citing cherry-picked misquotes from obviously sectarian and non-academic sources.

Since that incident, he has:

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 removes any possibility that Broter made all the previous edits I've cited from any perspective but Islamophobia.

If he wants to believe that Islam is only a terrorist's religion, he's free to believe that. But WP:NPOV obligates us to not entertain his beliefs as fact on any project space.

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 Islamic terrorism and puffery 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)

Response: I have removed the quotes section in this Portal because I think it makes it more neutral. All edits with the exception of the edits for the Robert Spencer (author) article were not accepted. The edits for the Robert Spencer (author) article were correct to make the article more neutral. The Spencer-article had problems with being to biased against Spencer.--Broter (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edits went well beyond WP:GEVAL into 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. WP:NPOV obligates representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Broter's edits seem to be in-line with a viewpoint which is significantly held, and though some of the sources are not reliable, he is at least consistently sourcing his edits. Some of these diffs are truly dusty - going back over 2 years to provide only meager pickings. In particular, Ian.thomson misleadingly mentions a "slow edit war at Islamic terrorism" but Broter hasn't edited it since 18 June 2017‎ and "puffery at 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)
  • Personal attacks in edit summaries are particularly heinous, and in any case, 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 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)
  • 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)
No-mosque.svgThis 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.) Broter is obviously not trying to deal in nuance. Rather, they seem to be trolling based on a 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 Xenophobia, it's generally not seen as a diagnosis. "Phobia" (or "-phobia") has both a technical use and a common colloquial use, and the common use pre-dates and is the origin of the technical. Established non-diagnostic uses of "-phobia" need to be verified by the DSM-5 or ICD-10 about as much as someone writing outside the field of computer science needs to make sure that their use of the word 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 Robert Spencer (author)-article were accepted. My userboxes should be no reason to ban me. I am a valuable contributor to Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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 Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes. If this is the only concern from the past 3-6 months, I don't feel an indef block is justified. power~enwiki (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)
To 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:
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 (