Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290

---

I had closed an RFC at

) and left a note asking any other editor to close the discussion.
My reply to his assertions (here) were actually written before he reverted my edits. I asked other editors to comment on my closure. I was working as per where I would have reviewed my own closure and changed the statement had anything meaningful been brought before me or if most of the participants were unhappy with my closure.
Please correct me if my closure was wrong or take action against him if I was in the correct place. Also, I only wanted to resolve the issue with proper discussion but this reverting of closures isn't really helpful. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe

Capitals00 (talk

) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @

Capitals00:. Yashovardhan (talk

) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

[10] I don't know if this is the place but I've already grown tired of these jibes and personal attacks every time our orbits come into contact. I avoid the guy because he is always creating conflict but I feel he is trying to intimidate me into not commenting with these constant comments. WCM_email 09:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. That's kind of like

WP:Battleground behaviour that he's showing. I've notified him of this discussion but he seems to ignore it. Yashovardhan (talk

) 09:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Asilah has displayed battleground behaviour throughout this RfC. He edit-warred continually to add his disputed content back into the first sentence while the RfC was ongoing, even when it was crystal clear that consensus in the RfC was against that content (the choice in the end was between two neutral alternatives to Asilah's version). Then he changed tack and edit-warred to add a "failed verification" tag to the second sentence on the spurious grounds that three citations in the second sentence failed to verify the first sentence. He even admitted that this was what he was doing. Note also the tendentious edit summaries like this and this. Asilah made it clear that he didn't like how the RfC was going, and that if he didn't get the result he wanted, "of course he would take it further". He followed this up by posting "Invalid RfC", though he did strike this when he thought he was going to get the result he wanted. Reverting the close without a policy-based reason is just his latest attempt to disrupt the process.

Asilah has a history. He was indef blocked after

this); and although his behaviour has been not quite as egregious since then, he continues to show a battleground mentality on multiple pages. In my opinion he needs to be sent a message. Scolaire (talk

) 13:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

We're running short of messages we can send that don't involve blocks and bans. He's been ticked off by admins before and just ignored it or insisted that he was in the right. We offered him mentorship and he agreed terms - but then reneged on them as soon as they involved actually changing his behaviour in any way.

I have not interacted with Asilah recently because he's mostly stayed away from my areas of interest. The problem back then was that Asilah appeared to believe that anyone who did not unconditionally support his position on any matter was acting in bad faith. He'd claim to AGF but then in the same message insist that you were trying to torment him by asking for evidence to back his position. When I read things like this, along with the other behaviour described here, it is clear to me that this may have moderated but not fundamentally changed. Kahastok talk 17:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know about his long term behaviour but I did check that he had been blocked earlier. I just think he needs some good mentoring and a lesson about how to discuss at talk pages. For instance, I had notified him of this discussion but he didn't respond here (yet). Instead, he chose to continue discussion about (attacking?) other editors at the article talk page. He is showing childish behaviour which needs to stop (unless he's actually a child). In any case, I again left a note at that article talk page where he was discussing. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this really worth an ANI, Yashovardhan? I reverted once or twice then moved to talk page. I disagree with your closure but I have long working hours and I'm not willing to waste more time on this. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Something I have noticed, which is tantamount to gaming the system, every time this escalates to a point where it reaches here or ANI, then they back right off. It appears like the need for admin action has disappeared and so nothing happens. Then its back to the same battlefield behavior again. WCM_email 07:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So devious of me....Asilah1981 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

After reading the concerns raised by others here, I'll say it needs to be discussed. It's high time you stop this behaviour. I suggest he requires good mentoring. This was the reason I first raised it at ANI but it was redirected here. An admin action is required now. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no point. He had a good mentor, who asked him to agree some conditions. He did so. He then ignored them. He didn't try and fail to make the standard. He made no attempt whatsoever to follow the conditions. The mentoring ended because the mentor decided that it could not succeed without Asilah's cooperation.

Unless there is a reason to assume that the same won't happen again, mentoring is a non-starter. Kahastok talk 21:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[11] His latest comment on a talk page, this is words of encouragement to an editor trying to make sense of an awful article. I agree with the comments about mentoring, it would appear that mentoring was agreed to when a permanent block was being considered for disruptive editing. As soon as the focus was removed, they quickly reverted to the same behaviour elsewhere. WCM_email 23:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is a ban or block being suggested here? I think a temp block will have no gain as he has a history of being block. If he is particularly disruptive in one field, a ) 13:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I would endorse a topic ban from topics related to the Iberian peninsula, broadly construed, until he demonstrates some vague understanding of

WP:AGF. Calling people psychopaths is not on. Kahastok talk

17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As a note, this post by Asilah1981 on WCM's talk page would have to rank among the worst types of personal abuse. Calling other editors a 'dick' and a 'psychopath' is totally unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with

WP:DNR is a good policy for him as well but now its too late for that. Yashovardhan (talk

) 07:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposal for Asilah1981

As suggested by

) 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I support the ban as proposer. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• As suggested by some others, I'd extend my support to all political subjects including the Syrian war. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I thought for a while before making this suggestion above because it's a tough action and I want to be fair to Asilah. But this has been going on, to my knowledge, for close to a year. How long should we have to tolerate an editor disrupting every attempt to improve a set of articles with such a resolute and unbending insistence that anyone who doesn't agree with him is acting in bad faith? I wouldn't bring this up but it is entirely typical of Asilah's behaviour for close on twelve months.

He's been indeffed once already. Mentoring has been tried and failed almost immediately. Something has to give, and I think this ban is proportionate. Kahastok talk 18:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry on what basis?

1) I have NOT made any edits to this article od my own. WCM began promptly edit warring with another editor (Anes pur sang) who was just trying to improve the articles, with what seemed like considerable effort and research in a completely non-political way.

2) I noticed the disruptive pattern and supported him.

3) I have requested (with strong words, he has done this too many times) WCM not to harass me on my talk page.

4) I have not broken the 3RR.

Two nationalistic editors disliking me is not grounds for a topic ban. Danke schon.Asilah1981 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think an indef block will be better if this kind of behaviour (as pointed above by Nick and Kahastok) continues. A topic ban is a slightly lighter proposal if this personal attack is considered. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Indefinite block? Q? Mazaak band karo yaar... Asilah1981 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Translation in English : Why? Stop this joke... --Yashovardhan (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: Bro, we are not joking here. Not meaning to insult you but you should have been more careful about these interactions. You already know that Personal attacks are strictly not tolerated here. Here's my suggestion, just read it once if you will, its for your own good :-

• Accept this topic ban
• Move away from all editors you have had major issues with and try moving into a field where they are not regular. (I know its hard but its not impossible, you can create a self imposed interaction ban if you want).
• Show that you understand what this ban is being proposed for
• Stop personal attacks altogether
• Make a good fresh record for yourself and come back in a few months to get this ban lifted.

I hope you understand that I have never interacted with you earlier so my opinion is as unbiased as it could get. I have the deepest respect for you and know that you can prove that you dont need an indef. Oh, and please do provide diffs for personal attacks that you alleged others have done against you, it will make your case stronger.

I wish you all the best of luck for your future endavours! Now if you could excuse me, its my birthday in a few minutes. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well happy birthday Yashovardhan but do not claim you have "never interacted with me and are unbiased" when only recently we have had a dispute over a questionable RfC closure as can be seen above, I believe. Its best to remain honest on these matters. Chalo, soja raha hoon. Mazaa karo.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: Thank you. What I meant was that I've not interacted with you before this issue. If you look again, i used the word 'earlier'. Sorry if I sent any wrong impression. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• CommentYashovardhan Excuse me?? Do you know how many times WCM has called me a Dick in discussions? He even has edit summaries calling me a dick and I'm pretty sure he has called me a dick a number of times on my talk page. Do you want me to post the diffs here? I'm getting tired of this cry baby attitude, the same two guys coming to this board over and over again after baiting and insulting me, hoping for a topic ban or block of some kind. All I ask from them is to be left alone, to not post on my talk page and to not track my edits in other articles. (They can call me a dick, Im fine with that). And please stop wasting the community's time with more Gibraltar-related moaning. I do not even edit those articles.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have been personally attacked, I dont see any reason for not sharing those diffs here. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan I don't need to trawl through diffs looking for the number of times WCM has told me to stop being a WP:DICK, he knows it is true and he won't deny it, unless he feels wasting my time is worth him looking bad. I am not that thin skinned to consider it a personal attack though. If you think I'm problematic, have a look at my edits on the clusterfuck in Syria-related articles which is an outright warzone (no pun intended) and ask yourself if I'm really a conflictive editor. This entire thread is about editors having personal issues with me, not an edit conflict. It is over one fricking word I used in anger "psycopath" which wasn't even about an edit conflict but about posting on my wall. And yes I have been trying to stay away from WCM. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the record: I was briefly permanently blocked for accidentally revealing one of your names, under your past aliases while bringing up in a discussion that both of you have been topic banned on Gibraltar-related articles (not knowing your past aliases were your real names). So using this confusion against me is unwarranted. Also this happened over a year ago.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support It seems that no matter where this editor edits, he appears to engender conflict and often for either really silly reasons or for POV reasons. Just for information mentoring was previously considered at ANI as an alternative to an indeff block for this editor. I was happy for
  Irondome to try and mentor this user, especially if it stopped the personal abuse directed at me. However, it seems clear that they never had any intention of sticking to a mentoring agreement, it seems that it was used as an escape route to escape sanctions and once the focus on his editing behaviour was lost he returned to form. I see a topic ban as a last step before an indef block. WCM_email
  13:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I have not interacted with this user. I noticed that he insulted WCM here, so I reverted him. Then I checked a bit more on the background dispute: he reverted the article
  Disputed status of Gibraltar three times in less than 24 hours, and then stopped. Right in the razor's edge of a 3RR breach, but as he did not revert a 4º time, he could not be reported. But, as I saw here, he has been using this method for a long time. Cambalachero (talk
  ) 14:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Interesting logic "Since he didn't break the rules we can't accuse him of breaking the rules, but since he nearly did, lets topic ban him anyways." By the way, the term DICK I used it paraphrasing WCM since he has been telling me "not to be a WP:DICK" repeatedly for months now, which is offensive yet not enough for me to consider wasting anyone's time over. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • See
      WP:GAME Cambalachero (talk
      ) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Given that you so strenuously objected to being warned of
      WP:3RR
      , it is surprising that you seem unaware of the part of the warning:

Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

These warnings are designed to help you. I suggest you read them and heed them. Kahastok talk 17:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kahastok and these rules don't apply to you? Because if we look through these articles you and WCM seem to be the most active reverters I have seen on Wikipedia.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The user has a lengthy history of combative, POV, disruptive, gaming editing in the area. I'm sure Iñaki LL would agree. He's been blocked 8 times in 2.5 years [12], and is probably headed for an indef if he continues on his destructive course. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Softlavender Ask the editors who blocked me, but 4 of the times I was blocked were due to a single kafkian situation whereby the admins were forbidden by policy to tell me what I was doing wrong and why they were blocking me. It was a strange event. Eventually, they left me enough hints for me to work it out by myself.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• WP:DICK does apply I believe, the first time I have used this expression and I responded in kind to the same accusation launched by this very same user. For the record, I don't like this concept of WP:DICK and have suffered it too many times. I use it once and somehow it becomes a shit storm. Talk about "gaming the system"....Asilah1981 (talk
  ) 16:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for your quote "required to harass you by policy". When doing so, bear in mind that editors are required to post certain notices by policy, that this is not considered

a very serious accusation that itself requires evidence), and that you are not allowed to avoid admin scrutiny by banning people from posting those required warnings. Kahastok talk

17:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Kahastok The diffs are on my talk page. Harrassment involves repeatedly posting warnings on an experienced editors talk page when involved in an edit conflict when they have asked you repeatedly to stop doing so. And this is not the first time or the second.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't find that quote on your talk page. It should be trivial to post the link to the diff you are quoting?

Note that I find nothing in

WP:HARASS that would endorse your contention that it is harassment to post warnings on user talk pages in circumstances in which they are required or strongly recommended by policy or common practice. Kahastok talk

09:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for calling me to this unsurprising new incident. I have been largely inactive lately in the EN WP: like many editors of Spanish topics who prefer to dedicate to more productive things than permanent litigation
  with ubiquitous editors, I am less and less active. I quitted the article Basque conflict for Asilah1981's conspicuous battleground approach defying all patience, the editor in question seems to thrive in litigation and all red hot topics of present-day and long-running Spanish politics, e.g. historical memory, historiography, terrorism/politics related violence, national (Spanish, Basque, Catalan) and territorial (Gibraltar) issues, Spanish race or no race,… POV pushing that puts all patience to test. For what I read above, the editor in question continues set in his ways with an ad hominem, judgemental, divisive approach, parroting the same old generic partial truths… Four months ago, he conspicuously breached a constructive, well-meant sanction (cited above, cf. Irondome), and nothing happened whatsoever, total impunity. Gaming the system is one phrase that suits well his behaviour, for what I can see he has not learnt anything, only more sophisticated ways to circumvent the system. Iñaki LL (talk
  ) 21:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

So I think that's it. That's all of you who have either falsely accused me of things I haven't done (Inaki's favourite method is accusing half a dozen of unrelated editors of sockpuppetry) or who have a long standing grudge against me. Shall I now ping the dozens of editors with which I have edited constructively and thanked me for my work over the last 5 years and turn this into a battle of meatpuppets or shall we just forget about this ridiculous incident?Asilah1981 (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

O actually, I read Asilah1981's latest personal attack as pointed by Yashovardhan above. It just confirms there is no learning whatsoever. I was subject to serious personal attacks addressed to me in Spanish some time ago in his own talk page and MLNV prisoners page, and veiled threats in an ANI one-two years ago, although he has refined his ways of addressing to me in the course of time. Due to his inability to refrain, I should rather support a complete ban, with topic ban as second option. As I have said other times, there is the edit record for everyone to check. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I outlined Asilah's tendentious editing at Catalan Countries in my post in the previous section. I have seen similar behaviour at articles with which I have not been involved, e.g. this at Disputed status of Gibraltar, this at Basque conflict, and this at ETA. He was also involved in this discussion at ANI over edit-warring to replace a copyrighted image in several Iberian-related articles without a proper fair use rationale. Asilah has a problem with objectivity, and a problem with unemotional, rational discussion. He does game the system by withdrawing at strategic moments so that right now, for instance, he could not be blocked because he's not doing anything blockable (his last revert at Disputed status of Gibraltar was two days ago). A topic ban seems the only answer. Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire why on earth would anyone block me Scolaire? Because you don't like me? Nothing in policy allows a group of editors to come together on the basis of their opposition to one editor's views on a range of different topics to "topic ban" him. On what topics? "Asilah is banned from editing on anything that WCM, Scolaire, Inaki and Kahastok feel VERY strongly about". The basis of this decision was that Asilah was rude when asking WCM for the nth time to stop posting on his talk page. Really? That is the expected outcome? You think that is how wikipedia works? And you accuse me of gaming the system? This IS gaming the system. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Read your response again, Asilah. It sums up exactly what the problem is. There was a number of ways you might have responded, but the only way you know is to go on the attack with shouty bolded sentences. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support No basis in policy,
  falls within the definition of disruptive editing. Rather than address these complaints, you have chosen instead to attack the other editors as your personal enemies. I am posting this here in the (possibly vain) hope that input from an editor who has not previously interacted with you may have some positive effect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
  14:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn Ok fine. I'm done with this issue. Just make sure this guy doesn't harass me on my talk page again and I'm happy. Its ironic that two editors who had to open new accounts to circumvent long-term bans on these very articles, are trying to get me topic-banned. I barely edit them anyways, technically I didn't edit them at all. I just briefly supported the latest of the dozens who has been hounded out by these editors over the past decade. Have a nice week. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think

WP:SPI is pretty good in dealing with these situations. Did you consider filing a case there with the evidence you might have to make such accusations? Yashovardhan (talk

) 17:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Its not an accusation, its a known fact by all admins. The reason I was blocked was for outing their former accounts, not knowing that they were their true names. I cannot discuss this topic as per Wikipedia policy, would get me blocked - this time permanently.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART then. Yashovardhan (talk

) 14:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I do know WP:CLEANSTART, Yashovardhan simply see little change in behavior between then and now... anyways, I have other issues to worry about these days.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Asilah has long been a disruptive influence in these articles and his responses here are classic examples of a
  WP:GAME examples, making 3 reverts then stopping short of a fourth. Since this part of a long pattern rather than an isolated incident, an enforced break from these articles would be best. Valenciano (talk
  ) 18:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic-ban from all topics related to the Iberian peninsula, broadly construed. The disruption has been repeated over a very long period of time and consistently involves personalizing disputes with editors that Asilah1981 disagrees with. Asilah1981 states above that he 'barely' edits articles in this topic area anyway. If true, then the topic ban will have little to no impact on his editing. But based on the editing history I think this claim is more a case of another example of the tendentious approach to editing that this editor has. MPS1992 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I would support a wider topic ban related to any political subjects Here is their latest edit. He tells that members of "fact checking organizations" "celebrate public executions with militants". What? This is not supported by any reliable sources, to tell this politely. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know if I support this--I do know that the "dick" comment came after a. Asilah asked WCM to stay away from their talk page and b. WCM didn't honor that request--so it seems pretty clear who was in the wrong here. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I only saw their edits in the area of Syrian war, such as this ("fat unemployed blogger" in edit summary; being "fat and unemployed" is not a reason for removing anything), or that doubtful usage of Amnesty statement [13]. In the last diff he (mis)represents views by Amnesty International and EU as something opposite to the views by US and UK governments. In fact, they are not opposite. But whatever. I have no strong opinion about it.My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Next comment by Asilah: [14]. He refers to this propaganda "source" by David Icke to connect to a video of public execution by Islamic militants. I do not think this is anything appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And now he violated 1RR restriction on the page to insert a poorly referenced statement by Assad Here his edit was reverted by another contributor. And what he does? revert (note the reinserted phrase about Assad), and reinserts it again. Note that his sources are questionable. And he does it while his editing is under discussion on WP:AN! I think he is simply

WP:NOTHERE. My very best wishes (talk

) 13:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity, first revert 17:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC); second revert 05:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC); diff of prior notification of 1RR 22 May 2017. I don't know whether 1RR violations are supposed to be reported to EWN (or AE) while there is an ongoing discussion of general behaviour at AN. Scolaire (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like this clarified as well? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan, I asked Drmies, who is an admin, and he answered, "It's up to you. It's possible that AE gains more immediate attention from an admin, but it's more paperwork." The thing is, I wouldn't be comfortable going to Arbitration Enforcement over a page and a topic where I'm not involved. Probably My very best wishes should do it if he still wants to pursue the matter. Scolaire (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

However, I see he has now self-reverted so it's probably best to leave it. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scolaire: Ya, It's best to leave all this. His latest drama - propose a topic ban on me. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

So, having reverted him exactly once you're now a "bad faith edit warrior", banned from his talk page as well? I increasingly think these talk page bans are aimed at preventing admin scrutiny by banning people from posting warnings.

Regardless, this insistence that anything short of unqualified support for his position is evidence of bad faith is the precise behaviour that this topic ban is intended to remove. So, in the circumstances, I would support including Syrian Civil War or other political subjects as described by My very best wishes in the topic ban. Kahastok talk 19:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - persistent disruptive editing cannot be tolerated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Since the user whose conduct is being discussed here continues to edit (or rather, edit war) in the specified field, when can this topic ban proposal's consensus be decided and it be implemented? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I would list at

WP:ANRFC after it's been open 7 days (i.e. after 17:58 UTC, 8 June 2017)? Obviously if an admin closes before then, then that works too of course. Kahastok talk

20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's good enough. I didn't realize ANRFC could close AN discussions as well. On another note, I've extended my support to all political subjects and propose this as an alternative proposal to supplement this. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Clearly disruptive in this topic area. Stikkyy t/c 04:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia has a history, especially in the topic of politics, of civil incivility whereby editors will civilly gaslight their opponents until they can build up enough frustration to cause someone to crack, then run to AN or AE for a topic ban and gain full control of a topic. I'm opposing topic bans based on "incivility" on principal until this problem is fixed with a policy change.--v/r - TP 13:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • See
    WP:POINT. If you don't like the current policies, propose the appropiate changes at the policy talk page, the village pump, etc; but elsewhere. Here, we are discussing about this specific user, and we are doing so with the policies that are in force right now. Cambalachero (talk
    ) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It isn't just civility though. It's also edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND. And come on, this incivility is not "provoked", he pretty much comes right out and makes comments which poison the discussion right at the start and preclude a meaningful dialogue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary proposal: Extend topic ban to all political subjects

• Support topic ban on all political subjects as proposer Yashovardhan (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Much as I dislike overly prescriptive topic bans [15],[16] posted here, whilst under consideration for a topic ban, shows the blatant disregard for
  WP:NOTTHEM. WCM_email
  06:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, given the evidence of his attitude and behaviour on Syria-related pages, not to mention his "Second Supplementary proposal" below. He just doesn't seem to be capable of any kind of dialogue that is not confrontational. Scolaire (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Question: should you ping everybody who contributed to the previous discussion? Scolaire (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, Scolaire; you could do that yourself. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay then, pinging Kahastok, Nick-D, Cambalachero, Iñaki LL, Eggishorn, Valenciano, MPS1992, Drmies, Midnightblueowl and Stikkyy. --Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. User is clearly rapidly approaching
  WP:NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk
  ) 08:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per comments in previous section. In addition, based on their comments so far, this user completely ignores good faith attempts by others on explaining WP policies and does not see any problems in their own editing, even though the problems are significant and obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the editor is overtly combative and clearly WP:NOTHERE. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The "Secomd (sic) Supplementary proposal" below clearly shows that he's the type of user who reacts to sanctions by further escalating the conflict. If forced to stay out only of the Iberian peninsula, he would cause problems elsewhere as retaliation, so let's just skip that phase and leave him out of political topics altoguether. I suppose he won't cause much harm editing the articles about the Looney Tunes. That's all folks! Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: i.e. ban on Iberian Peninsula + all political matters, per
  WP:DISRUPT. Iñaki LL (talk
  ) 13:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per other editors. Stikkyy t/c 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately, I think we've exhausted all the options short of this.

To lift this topic ban - assuming it is adjudged to have achieved consensus - Asilah will have to demonstrate his understanding of why his edits in these areas have been problematic, and what he needs to do to change that problem. I hope that at some stage he can achieve this. But I think it's clear from the below comments both that he doesn't understand the problem with his personal attacks and persistent refusal to pay anything more than lip service to

WP:AGF, and that he doesn't want to understand it. Until this changes, a topic ban is the right course to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Kahastok talk

18:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - seems to be long overdue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hatting silliness. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Secomd Supplementary proposal I suggest a topic ban for Yashovardhan for all topics related to India, Sushi and Loony Tunes characters.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Now seriously, as an example of how farcical this whole process is, I happen to be one of the most restrained editors on Syria related articles. One of the few who is not locked in the massive edit war between both sides and is trying to aid consensus, between warring sides. I thing if you guys don´t stop picking on the little guy as soon as you smell blood WP:BOOMERANG should apply. This whole issue was about me being rude over someone harassing me on my talk page, NOT ABOUT MY EDITING!. @Asilah1981: You spelled 'second' wrong and forgot to sign the previous comment. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I should not participate in this silliness any further. I am certainly not perfect, but this is a ragtag mob of activist editors and a couple of others who are taking their slander at face-value. I would request an admin to carefully go through my editing history - and perhaps the editing history of some of those most keen on getting me banned. I trust Wikipedia works well enough that such blatant gaming of the system will not work. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above.--v/r - TP 13:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)