User talk:Khabboos

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

Notification of discretionary sanctions: homeopathy and pseudoscience[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that articles related to the topic of homeopathy are specifically included in the scope of the 'fringe science' arbitration decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't yet broken the rules with respect to the homeopathy article, but I will be careful!—Khabboos (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Contacting me[edit]

Please leave a message on my Talk Page or e-mail me using the "E-mail this user" link in the "Tools" section in the column on the left side of this page.—Khabboos (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Created a 2nd archive, but it is not showing in the links to old Archives[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

You created a second archive on your first archive page [1]. Do you want me to clean it up? --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, please do, thanks. Please also add a table of contents on the Top, thank you.—Khabboos (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --NeilN talk to me 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much NeilNKhabboos (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Attempts at off-Wiki co-ordination and what consensus is not[edit]

Khabboos, in many recent occasions and different locations, you have made edits describing yourself as a "sympathizer" with certain editors: [2] [3] [4] [5] and direct those editors to your User Talk, where you have a prominent notice to other editors how to contact you via e-mail. Of particular interest is this consecutive sequence of your edits, where you 1) Leave a public notice at Talk:Homeopathy directing editors to your User Talk page, and then 2) create a public notice on your User Talk directing editors to email you privately.

You have also left a request to have an editor enable email so that you can deliver "urgent advice" off-Wiki via e-mail: [6].

It raises significant concern as to what kind of urgent advice regarding Wikipedia editing you need to deliver privately off-Wiki via e-mail which could not simply be posted to the editor's User Talk.

On a closely related topic, you appear to misunderstand WP:CONSENSUS. For example in this edit, where you advise a new editor "...but don't try to insert it into the article (even when you become eligible to do so) until 3-4 other users agree with your suggestion". Consensus is not the result of a vote or the marshalling of 'sympathizers' but rather the best-made and best-supported arguments based in reliable sourcing and Wikipedia policy. It should not matter if you have 10 editors who are 'sympathizers' all arguing for an edit if the argument for that edit is not based in reliable sourcing and Wikipedia content guidelines.

Khabboos, based on the above, this is a final warning to you regarding your editing in the WP:ARBPS pseudoscience and fringe science topic area. You have already received the initial WP:ARBPS notification from administrator TenOfAllTrades above here. Please ensure your editing behavior in this area complies with Wikipedia editing rules, otherwise you may be subject to discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Zad68 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, TenOfAllTrades (and Zad68) is indeed an administrator/sysop. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades is not an admin at all, please see this page.—Khabboos (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Khabboos, the page you linked to is incomplete. Try this link. It is more reliable.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
User:TenOfAllTrades is a "sysop, 19029 edits since: 2004-11-27". A WP:SYSOP is the same thing as an administrator. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This is non sense. Sorry. S/he did not nothing wrong - unless it is wrong to disagree with the point of view of the article - citing reliable sources.--Saharadess (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

BMJ[edit]

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to BMJ's library: link to form. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thanks, Nikkimaria!—Khabboos (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Khabboos. We're very excited to have this BMJ access and eager to see it used in a way which improves medical articles. There was a concern raised about topic ban(s) as a factor in whether you should receive access other other editors who've requested the limited accounts. I'm going to assume good faith here and just say that this is a really neat opportunity to do good work, and a great moment to use the resource to focus on content development while avoiding battlegrounds. In short, please use your BMJ access in an exemplary way! I hope you get a lot out of it. Best, Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a note on editing CAM/Pseudoscience articles. I started editing Wikipedia 5 years ago at Chiropractic; I argued the article was too critical of chiropractic. It took me eight months to find consensus on a single sentence. The only thing that made a difference in making clear arguments was reading the secondary sources (large RCTs, systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, professional society statements), and then applying them in light of WP:MEDRS. You need to work with the editors on the page and that, more than anything else, means listening and trying to see from their perspective. That is the beginning of crafting suitable compromises. Asking the same questions over and over only results in editors getting frustrated with you and then they'll never listen to any good ideas you have! Read the sources you want to cite fully; read the policies fully. Try to realize that Wikipedia's mission means good and reasonable people can disagree but still seek common ground. If you have any questions, drop by my talk page anytime. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Khabboos. Sorry for the back and forth here, but we missed a key point. Editors who receive access have to have 1 year of editing in their account history. We're going to move you to a waitlist and revisit this when we hopefully receive more accounts (this round is a 'pilot' so that should happen in 6 to 12 months). Keep learning! Best of luck, Jake Ocaasi t | c 22:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, no problem!—Khabboos (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

AE Appeal[edit]

I wanted to let you know that I have closed your arbitration enforcement appeal. As per consensus there, you are prohibited from filing an appeal to that noticeboard more often than every six months. I do feel obliged to mention that you may appeal this via the procedure listed at WP:AC/DS, but I believe that it is unlikely that you will succeed. NW (Talk) 02:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Khabboos, this is another warning regarding your editing at Homeopathy, an article under WP:ARBPS discretionary sanctions. First, you are exhibiting tendentious editing behavior, in that you are repeating the same arguments without convincing others. Second, you are failing to grasp Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding reliable sourcing for the topic area. Based on your comments on the article Talk page I need to make it clear to you here that you may be sanctioned for your behavior on the article Talk page alone, without editing the article. Zad68 16:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was merely replying to Sixwords with respect to the 1998 trial he mentioned—Khabboos (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you were repeating a suggestion you have made many times, a suggestion against a clear consensus and against several very RSs. That suggestion is one of the most blatant examples of "I didn't hear that" and tendentious behaviors I've seen in my 10+ years here. It's pretty much a textbook example of a point violation, except it's not an edit to the article. Still, repetitive disruptive behavior (this crazy suggestion has been repeated many times by you) of this kind on a talk page is punishable under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions.
Khabboos, the sources use the word "placebo", and you can't change history and make them not say it anymore. It's a done deal, and we follow those sources. Don't ever make that suggestion again. Do you understand?
In light of the previous warnings and notifications you have received, I'm requesting that you be topic banned and it be recorded along with your other topic ban(s).
There is only one homeopathy editor I know of who is this stubborn and totally incapable of understanding English logic, and that's the indef banned User:Dr.Jhingade. Are you him? (Not that he would ever admit it since he is a notorious liar. He has been caught numerous times telling blatant lies about his sockpuppet activities.)
  • You share the same obsession with removal of certain words, regardless of how well they are sourced.
  • You share the same failures to understand basic English.
  • You share the same type of IDHT behavior.
  • You share the same lapses in memory and tendency to repeat rebutted and debunked arguments.
  • You share the same obsession with using the same long list of unreliable sources.
  • You share the same tendency to return again and again, even when your arguments and suggestions have been debunked and torn to shreds.
I could go on.... I suspect you should be indef blocked/banned as a sock of Dr.Jhingade. You've wasted far too much of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the indefinitely blocked user you're referring to. I have understood your point about not repeating the suggestion and will follow it. I have lots of other work to do, so I'll stop here.—Khabboos (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Gross incompetence or a WP:POINT violation[edit]

Zad, you need to see this behavior, especially in light of your warning immediately above:

Then he filed this spurious AfD:

Here's my comment there:

  • Speedy keep. Yes, this is a bad faith nomination. It's either gross incompetence or a WP:POINT violation. The background is found here: Talk:Homeopathy#Zicam. SMH! Khabboos just can't help being disruptive. This is just one bit of sand on the mile long beach of his disruptive behaviors, and a mile long section of beach has lots of sand on it. I suggest that editors begin to monitor him very closely:
Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He's currently topic banned from certain political (?) articles, but should also be topic banned from all Alternative medicine and Fringe articles, "broadly construed".

That topic ban really needs to happen now.

It's also really odd that when Technophant isn't busy, Khabboos gets busy, and when Technophant is busy, Khabboos goes into hibernation. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The AfD has been closed as a "speedy keep". The closer's comments are interesting significant:
  • "The result was speedy keep. As noted below perhaps an Admin should keep an eye on the nominator."
Brangifer (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Enforcement case opened[edit]

I have requested a review of your edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Khabboos. Please comment there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Socking[edit]

Your not being hounded. Your only in trouble for socking; which was just confirmed. When will you learn not to be disruptive? AcidSnow (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry to evade arbitration enforcement sanctions, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khabboos, as a continuation of predominantly disruptive conduct. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Sandstein  19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)