User talk:Khabboos

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notification of discretionary sanctions: homeopathy and pseudoscience

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.

Template:Z33 TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Contacting me

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)[reply]

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

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, 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)[reply]

OK, please do, thanks. Please also add a table of contents on the Top, thank you.—Khabboos (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much NeilN—Khabboos (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Khabboos, TenOfAllTrades (and Zad68) is indeed an administrator/sysop. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades is not an admin at all, please see this page.—Khabboos (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]