Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following request for comments is closed. The request for comment has been resolved by enacting a global ban.

Statement by Nick[edit]

Please note that these two accounts are legitimate alternative accounts, they have occurred due to an issue with SUL. There are additional illegitimate (sockpuppet) accounts which I will list separately. The account Til Eulenspiegel was primarily used for English editing and discussions with users in English, whilst Codex Sinaiticus was primarily used for Amharic editing and discussions in Amharic.

Global ban eligibility:

  1. Til Eulenspiegel continues to demonstrate the behaviour for which I believe a global ban is required
  2. Til Eulenspiegel has been given an opportunity to remedy their behaviour, their behaviour still continues several years after their first blocks for such behaviour.
  3. Til Eulenspiegel is blocked indefinitely on two projects: English Wikipedia and English Wikisource.


Codex Sinaiticus is/was an administrator and bureaucrat on the Amharic Wikipedia ( until 7 January 2019, when they had their permissions removed by a steward due to misuse. This misuse forms part of this global ban request.

Codex Sinaiticus blocked user QueerEcofeminist on the 22 October 2018 for username violations, using typical settings (account creation blocked). This block was changed on 6 January 2019 to disable e-mail and talk page access. QueerEcofeminist appears to have made only one edit to Amharic Wikipedia - an attempt to appeal their block by posting a message pinging Codex Sinaiticus and politely asking for an explanation concerning the block it seems like you have blocked me here, I do not know what you thing is weong with me as I have not done anything on this wiki....

This block was brought to the attention of steward Teles and the issue was raised with Codex Sinaiticus on 6 January 2019. The explanation given by Codex Sinaiticus was Homosexuality and the promotion of homosexuality have always been illegal in the criminal code of Ethiopia, where most Amharic speakers are located. It is not only offensive to me, but for around 99% of Ethiopians, as it is considered inimical to the family spirit for which Ethiopia stands, and this is clearly stated in the criminal code. For this reason, promotion of homosexuality will not be tolerated here nor will it be forced down our throats to suit anyone's international political agenda if you expect Ethiopians to take part. It is also against our policy to allow username activity advertizing one's sexual lifestyle as we are family friendly and wish to remain that way. In nearly 15 years of operation this is the only offender to come to my attention, you will notice virtually no one else uses their name to advertise their sexual persusion and how abnormal this is.

There was some discussion backwards and forwards between Teles and Codex Sinaiticus resulting in Codex Sinaiticus blocking Teles. The message leading up to this block was What is sad is that your only function on this project appears to be as a foreign advocate of homosexuality and you continue to argue , leaving me with no choice but to block you as well for creating a disturbance. The block was in force from 00:51 to 00:57 on 7 January 2019, when it was then lifted by steward MarcoAurelio. MarcoAurelio removed the +sysop and +bureaucrat user groups from Codex Sinaiticus on the basis they were used abusively. Codex Sinaiticus has continued to make inflammatory remarks concerning homosexuality, including Don't force your sick values on Ethiopia - you will regret it! and No, actually homosexuals are considered subhuman by the vast majority of Ethiopians. Removing my management with no warning or appeal is typical hamfistedness, like Ethiopia dealt with in 1936.!

These edits were originally made at here and were then moved to here which is why I've not provided diffs, as things are slightly confusing now the discussion has been moved wholesale from the Codex Sinaiticus talk page to the Til Eulenspiegel talk page.

This behaviour is not isolated or restricted to the Amharic Wikipedia.

Codex Sinaiticus, using the user account Til Eulenspiegel has been blocked indefinitely (then community banned) on the English Wikipedia and is also indefinitely blocked on the English Wikisource.

The behaviour on the English Wikipedia, which led to a community ban in October 2016, was the use of IP addresses to make homophobic remarks, whilst evading a pre-existing indefinite block placed against the Til Eulenspiegel account (the indefinite block was placed initially in September 2014 and was their second indefinite block, a prior indefinite block was lifted and converted to a 1 week finite block). The community ban discussion occurred when they (using an IP address) left an edit summary (now deleted) targeting a specific user (name removed) reverting militant sodomite, homosexual fa99ot [redacted] who censored my words with the comment "nothing to see here" like the queer he/she is Diff (en.wp admin only link).

The list of sockpuppets used by Til Eulenspiegel can be found at (confirmed) and (suspected) accounts.

They have been blocked on English Wikisource for "intimidating behaviour/harassment" where they called an administrator there an ...incredible asshole... and have an extensive block log on Wikidata for their behaviour. The contributions there include abuse directed to an administrator [1] and then a series of abusive talk page messages [2][3][4] and a series of deleted edits (which I cannot see, hopefully a Wikidata admin may be able to provide an overview of their problematic nature) [5].

I can confirm that I will notify the user and will inform the English Wikipedia and try to post on the Amharic Wikipedia to notify users of this discussion, if you would like me to make additional notifications, please ping me and detail which project(s) you would like me notify additionally.

-- Nick (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Support Support - This user believes members of the LGBTQ+ community are "sub human". They've engaged in harassing and discriminatory behavior on multiple projects. Their attitude is essentially "I'm, going to keep doing this regardless of what anyone says". Lets get the community to actually enforce this --Cameron11598 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a strictly accurate representation of what was said. The exact words were "...homosexuals are considered subhuman by the vast majority of Ethiopians."[6] According to Wikipedia, this is correct. "97 percent of Ethiopia residents believe that homosexuality is a way of life that society should not be accepted..." See: LGBT rights in Ethiopia. If you want to "get rid of" this attitude, you will have to ban the entire Amharic Wikipedia, either that or work it out with them. Neotarf (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Maybe somehow find a way to make this type of attitude to go away in cooporation with that specific part of community without banishing that entire part of the community. Saederup92 (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not only the Amharic community, it is worldwide. See LGBT rights by country or territory We cannot expect to exclude whole language and cultural groups until all these countries change their laws and traditions to fit Western expectations. On the other hand, we *can* expect users to treat people with basic human dignity, no matter their personal feelings. Unfortunately there is no policy basis for non-discrimination, except in the case of WMF employees, and no established standards of conduct. And if there is any dispute resolution process, for instance, to rewrite the Amharic policy to bring it into compliance with both Wikimedia expectations and their own cultural and legal standards, I don't know what it is. Neotarf (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to start somewhere. If we can improve how people treat each other just a bit then that's still better than nothing. The question is, however, how this should be achieved. Saederup92 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First I think to try to meet people more than halfway. If someone is concerned about not violating their local laws and customs, I think you have to respect their concerns. All this talk about Africans being "primitive" and "morally backward" is not at all helpful. I can only imagine how this is being rendered into Amharic through Google translate...judging by the comments, it is being interpreted in terms of eugenics. I am somewhat concerned by TE's statement that "Wikipedia and much of the internet have been blocked by the FDRE in Ethiopia multiple times in the past 3 years, sometimes for months". If you edit from a part of the world that enjoys freedom of speech, it might be very difficult to appreciate the challenges of editing under these terms, and they might not be able to safely express their concerns in a venue like this. See Internet in Ethiopia#Surveillance. I am thinking of people like Bassel Khartabil, and have written more about this on my blog. It is very likely that they have set up their project in a way they know is safe to edit. The second part is some kind of dispute resolution that does not involve a pile-on and people feeling intimidated. The third part is defining standards of conduct or best practices. Who is responsible for this? The WMF? The Board of directors? The volunteers? The strategy process seems dead, but perhaps some kind of start could be made at Wikimania, similar to the process for Technical Code of Conduct. Neotarf (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support: I don't care what the laws are in his locale. Wikipedia is hosted in the United States where homosexuality is rightfully legal. What TE has been doing goes against everything the WMF stands for and a global ban is a fitting punishment for discrimination against other users. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support I very strongly support this. TE/CS' inability to leave to treat editors with respect is problematic but they have a long history of abuse, including this block of Beetstra which took 5 months to reverse despite Beetstra never having made an edit at amwiki and basing it on a dispute on the English Wikipedia. Simply put an editor who advocates and creates policies on any projects to discriminate against people on the basis of gender, religion, race or sexual preference (and calling groups of people subhuman is never, ever acceptable) isn't compatible with Wikimedia's goals and I can't see how an editor who practices such ownership over any project can ever successfully be a productive member of this community, which includes everyone. I also have to note this lengthy block log on Wikidata for harassment as well. Praxidicae (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Sandstein (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support I strongly support this from what I've seen on the Amharic Wikipedia and based on the statements made here. There is no excuse for behavior like this on our projects. --Az1568 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support per above. Hiàn (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support global ban. Til Eulenspiegel (Codex Sinaiticus) has shown their blatant abuse of sysop tools. Already banned at English Wikipedia for their conduct and blocked elsewhere for the harassment issue, they continue the same action at their current home wiki and have clearly stated they will continue the same behavior. Their discrimination against editors is completely unacceptable. This editor shall not be allowed to participate in any Wikimedia projects. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support foundation:Resolution:Nondiscrimination is very relevant here. Blocking editors for sexual orientation is just not acceptable. Bellezzasolo (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support I have seldom encountered anything as reprehensible in more than a decade of editing WP. Despicable behaviour. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The user clearly does not understand that no country owns or controls the content of Wikipedia, and as a matter of fact, any of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Even if the judiciary of the committee advocated for bias against any sect of people, that thing can not and should not continue on WMF projects and this user has demonstrated that they do not understand any of this even though at least three different users notified them about how the laws play their part. That isn't the only reason. If you look at their actions, they have been abusing their admin rights since User:QueerEcoFeminist filed and unblock request. Taking away rest of privileges, blocking global b'crats for discussing the unfair block rationale, undoing ongoing discussions on talk and even being ignorant of the legal case of discrimination. They have shown that they are not fit to be an admin on that project, and a history of abuse just intensifies that maybe the entire project is doing better than this user not being a part of it.
    acagastya 23:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support. It's ok to have extreme opinions, it is not ok to weaponize them to control a project. The discussion below only reinforces how badly this person needs to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support. Ethiopian laws are not germane to the U.S. hosted Wikipedia projects, and even if this wasn't about a user's sexuality I believe a global ban is warranted based just on the behaviour displayed on both am. and en.wp. The homophobia, no matter how justifiable, is wholly inappropriate for a project that spans not just multiple cultures, but multiple walks of life. For example, how would he react to a third-gender person? Or an asexual? Or a transsexual? Or an attack helicopter? (sorry, couldn't resist) And that's not getting into the slippery slope this ultimately represents with regards to specific cultures, religions, sports supporters, etc. 86 him. He's not a benefit to any WMF project. If he wants to fork the project and create the Ethiopian/Amharic equivalent of Conservapedia, let him, but damned if he'll continue to treat people like me (I am indeed gay) as excrement on a WMF project. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support per above. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 00:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support The behavior outlined above has no place on any WMF project. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support indefinite global lock. Per Praxidicae, Bellezzasolo, and AntiCompositeNumber Dax Bane (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was Ajraddatz' oppose that brings me to update my vote. I still believe the beliefs held by TE are incompatible with the spirit of the wikimedia mission, and as such support the removal of them from this community, I'm no longer going to support a motion that is permanent. Dax Bane (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support. I was about to ask questions, query something but this seals the deal for me. Clearly they harbour a personal agenda that is neither contemptuous with the aims of this project or suitable to hold any permissions (including editing) globally. Not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a manner that will be acceptable based on community norms and legal grounds.--Cohaf (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support multiple blocks across multiple projects for harassment is grounds enough, but calling LGBTQ+ editors and people subhuman shows that this editor should not be part of the project in any manner. TheMesquito (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Per Cohaf and others, as well as their response to one of my comments regarding fixing amwiki: "Lol, good luck ! Rofl". ([7]) This user is not one that is suitable to be contributing to any Wikimedia project. Vermont (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You threaten them with legal consequences in the discussion that you linked here (a reason for a block itself in most of our projects) and they do not take that for serious. And this for you is one of the reasons you want them blocked from all projects? --Gereon K. (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support - Yeah, this is not okay and it's against the very principles that this foundation stands on. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Consistent ignorance and violations of WMF policy aside, with the sysop and 'crat flags removed the potential for abusing those perms is gone, the "I just want to write" argument is at least theoretically plausible (obviously I can't review their contributions given my language barrier). However, given their long history of abusive behavior across many projects, many of which touch on this very topic, I find it impossible to believe similar outbursts and abuse will not happen again. In particular, the truly bizarre edits at wikidata (via Praxidicae) suggest we will likely be seeing this behavior in the near future. ~ Amory (utc) 02:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support - harassing and discriminating against people because of who they are is contrary to the WMF's resolution on nondiscrimination, and fundamentally incompatible with the pursuit of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Bradv🍁 02:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support The Wikimedia Foundation and all language Wikis are hosted within the United States and thus governed by its laws without regard for those of Ethiopia. This user's conduct has be desired and is contrary to the Foundation's resolution on nondiscrimination. This behaviour is not tolerable and is at odds with the pursuit of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Based on this and the evidence above, I have no choice but to support a global ban in the strongest possible terms. --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support -- Abusive behavior / senseless comments in discussion pages on multiple projects is not tolerable. Tropicalkitty (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support per all the above. I recall Til Eulenspiegel's single-minded attack approach to disagreement from (and I've just looked back on some of it now and still find it shocking). That he is pushing his homophobic bigotry on other projects now, and had been abusing his advanced rights when challenged, really shows that even almost five years after his indef block on he has not changed his approach to collaborative editing at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To comment on Til Eulenspiegel's claim that he was trying to uphold Ethiopian law and not his own personal values, this discussion exposes that as a blatant lie. Some of his personal comments on homosexuality include "It is not only offensive to me, but for around 99% of Ethiopians" (my emphasis), "...could be evidence that foreign advocates of homosexuality would intend to make platforms to preach this crime to countries where it is not wanted", "That (zero tolerance to homosexuality) and also any disruption to the fine Ethiopian character of the wiki which has an Ethiopian character is banned like would be done in Ethiopia!", "...your only function on this project appears to be as a foreign advocate of homosexuality", "Don't force your sick values on Ethiopia", "I suppose it would be what we call not homophobia but "civilization"". What we are looking at is nothing but odious bigotry. As Beeblebrox says above, "It's ok to have extreme opinions, it is not ok to weaponize them to control a project" - and it is shocking that some of our smaller Wikipedia projects with communities too small to defend against them can come to be ruled by such people. Getting rid of this one is a small, but much needed, step forward. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support: For two reasons, * I have seen and suffered from how this user's biased views can affect on other editors, who are even far away from them. As this user abusively used their admin tools to make a point and assert their blind beliefs without giving any chance to say what others want to say.
    User's who have been in power for such a long period tend to dominate other editors and go insane, which we are witnessing on mrwiki and other wikis too. And considering this user's histories of dictatorial behavior it's time to stop them from doing any damage further to any project under wmf.
    So enough is already damaged now we shall take some action. --QueerEcofeminist (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support Unacceptable disruption cross-wiki. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support the block of a steward who was simply trying to end an unjust situation was the last straw. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni:I'm in support but which steward is blocked by them as I don't see any?--Cohaf (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He blocked Teles - block log Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I thought he only block Q. That's really out if the way and a steward being blocked and the block reason is totally unacceptable via Google translate. --Cohaf (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t help but laugh at someone who thinks blocking a steward will get them anywhere. I mean it’s not like they could just snap everyone’s mops in half in a fit of rage if they so desired... StraussInTheHouse (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: speaking of stewards, it’s probably and idea for one to pop over there and delete that policy TE created. I can’t get the link because I’m on mobile but I think Praxidicae mentioned it above. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, I'm sad to say. I thought I was going to get to the point where things could be forgiven, but I was thinking of things from 2014, not from 2016--and that revdeleted comment is as bad as I've ever seen--or things from this new year. The QEcof block was bad enough, of course, and it points to the larger problem: a persistent confusion between language and country, with the consequence that a country's cultural values are now imposed upon a project whose connection with the country's laws is nonexistent. Nor was it ever established, as far as I know, that the values behind the username block were indeed those of the am-wiki community. But worse, on top of that administrative privileges were further abused in the revoking of talk page access: a username block is one thing, but this was silencing. Below, Til says a few decent things, and I'd almost believe him when he says that "these" are simply the values of the country/culture, as if he doesn't necessarily subscribe to them, but the administrative actions, not to mention the comments by socks on en-wiki, belie that. But we have values too. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For non-admins who can't see that 2016 edit summary, I think it should be acceptable to reproduce it here with the name of the abused editor redacted. Thus: "reverting militant sodomite, homosexual fa99ot <editor's username redacted> who censored my words with the comment "nothing to see here" like the queer he/she is". Then his very next comment to the same editor (which wasn't rev-deleted but is now) contained: "But then you aren't the brightest arrogant homosexual in the world, are ya???". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support. Bluntly, fuck that noise. This behaviour is not consistent with WMF terms of use. JzG (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support. Til Eulenspiegel's behavior is incompatible with Wikimedia's mission and purpose. Our community is of a nature which requires the ability to collaborate with editors from a variety of backgrounds, and I'm afraid this user has demonstrated that they are unwilling to be in that role. Mz7 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support. After all Til's wearying sockpuppetry and disruption on English Wikipedia, I can only support this. Bishonen (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  32. Support Support Til meets the criteria for a global ban, and doesn't seem to understand the difference between local norms and WMF policy. Their behavior (including misrepresentation and abuse of permissions) violates w:WP:5P4 and attempts to exert a chilling effect. Unfortunately, I see no evidence of a future change for the better at this time. Miniapolis 23:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support The WMF is going to ban him too probably 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:7A 12:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support Their attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people are incompatible with the goals of the project. Acting on those opinions to administer a language project is incompatible with WMF TOU. And blocking a Steward is totally unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support I seem to have missed some of this in my encounters with Til, which were mainly about fringe subjects. He was a very aggressive editor, quick to accuse other editors of various sins and at times vicious. His en-wiki ban was as definitely called for and he evaded it multiple times after he was blocked. Between that and the inexcusable bigotry I see no place for him in the global community. Doug Weller (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support. The sock puppetry, abusive comments, and trolling below show an obvious contempt for the global community. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support I was originally not gonna either support nor oppose a block but since this discussion is going nowhere at this point anyway, I honestly think it woukld be for the best. Saederup92 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support If you take a look at the discussion I started, he has become incredibly rude, and has started trolling. “I have also heard If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear a Clothespin on your nose!” If that’s not trolling(and shitposting) I don’t know what it is. But it is clear that despite the large amount of articles he has created on amwiki, he is completely unable to discuss with other editors. He won’t even discuss some things if the asker doesn’t speak am, as evidenced by talk page thread LakesideMiners (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Support The sock puppetry must end! 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The IP falls within a range which has been used by banned user in the past, see and the block log. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 20:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support Trolling and casting aspersions are not things I'd expect from a productive and collaborative community member - and that's just on this page. Til Eulenspiegel's behaviour towards other users creates a toxic atmosphere to collaboration and will probably be pushing away potential contributors. Even if Til Eulenspiegel is productive on amwiki, when combined with his behaviour produces a net negative to the project. To be clear, I have no issues with the views he seems to hold (everyone is entitled to their views), but enforcing those views on the global project in contravention of the expected norms of the global community is simply not acceptable. Given the generous opportunities provided to Til Eulenspiegel to change his behaviour over the years have been ineffective - including this discussion where he's promised to improve his behaviour and not even two days later is back to the toxic attitudes - a global ban is the only option remaining. I was hoping there was a way out of this, but Til Eulenspiegel has sealed their own fate here I think. stwalkerster (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support Read through this most of the day; the issues are beyond the pale (and they should have been shut down for that long ago), along with their discouragement of much editing on by shunning new users and trying to turn it into their own personal fiefdom. But their homophobia and use of admin tools to take down editors solely based on a username and their social views against every rule and policy we have is unacceptable. They've brought nothing but shame to the mop and the community, and we should be done with them. Once they blocked a steward for mere disagreement they lost their right to edit on the project. Mrschimpf (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I wanted to empathise with this person, although their beliefs genuinely disgust me. What is a tipping point for me is that they have shown no remorse over frankly hateful remarks to LGBT people, and no willingness to stop forcing everyone to abide by the rules of their country. I’m sorry to say it, but you, Til Eulenspiegel, are not even a good Christian, and you have shown practically nothing in support of a motion that you’re a good Wikimedian, i.e., a person that can work in collaborative environment with others while stepping aside their differences towards the same neutral project. stjn[ru] 13:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Support This person's behavior has been reprehensible in many ways, across several projects. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Support I blocked this user a few times on Wikidata for behavior such as a bunch of racist rhetoric. As far as the current incident, regardless of your beliefs on LGBT issues, you should treat other editors with respect. --Rschen7754 08:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing any "racist rhetoric" in that diff unless you mean "rhetoric about racism" in which case you should make that clear. Is it possible you don't understand the Bantustan reference? While that rhetoric is a bit inflammatory, I am honestly at a loss to explain how he could be disfavored in the underlying dispute, which seems bizarrely discriminatory against certain wikis. His initial blocks for civility were, like in the case with his permablock on WikiSource, downright frivolous and at times absurd. One block was for calling someone's comment "facetious" because the user suggested they all sort the dispute out at WikiDataCon, which was in Germany. The edit-warring all concerned the bizarrely discriminatory edits by another user, who didn't seem to be offering very compelling discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support There have been numerous diffs which attributes to Eulenspiegel's weaponising his own beliefs over Wikimedia projects to practice active discrimination and cast blatant personal attacks upon those who cares to cross his path. The third bullet of a policy created by him over Amharic Wikipedia states Anything disturbing the fine character of the people is prohibited, as in Ethiopian laws. and the penalty-section then proceeds to mention that all who disturb the fine character of the encyclopedia -- can be blocked.. It does not take much time to figure out that Eulenspiegel has been long-imposing Ethiopian laws on the users of the Amharic Encyclopedia; the prime example of which is reflected in his abusive block of QueerEcofeminist (the Ethiopian laws prohibit homosexuality and his statements over the years take an even extremist view); despite the constantly-changing statements of his', over this page. His abusive block of Beetsra, (a few years back) or that of Teles, (very-recently) further highlights his vindictive mentality and his' taking of Wikimedia Projects as a battleground to push his own beliefs. His grossly un-professional behavior over this page, coupled with his abusive sock-puppetry over en-wiki and his rev-deleted WikiData edits compounds the scenario, further. Overall, (despite the Wikisource block being a poor one), I see enough reasons for us to not welcome the subject of this discussion over any Wikimedia-space. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Support - For once in my life I am genuinely speechless!, You should be allowed to sign up to any project regardless of your sexuality, race, country etc etc etc - To block someone "because it goes against my countrys laws/rules" is absolutely fucking pathetic and nasty!, The blocking of a steward was also very bizarre, Given the homophobic actions/remarks, the blocking of a steward as well as the fact they've been blocked on god knows how many projects I firmly believe this editor should be forcibly shown the door once and for all!. –Davey2010Talk 17:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Buh bye, basically per everyone else above. --Dylan620 (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Support This hateful behavior is not acceptable. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Support We should not lower our behavioral standards simply because someone was born in a different country, regardless if there is a prevailing belief or not. The opposers should be ashamed. Nihlus 21:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Support -- The Hate Speech here stands in gross violation of the WMF's goals. Also blocking a Steward? What did you think was going to happen? --Church (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Support per PlyrStar93 and Nihlus. ToBeFree (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support very +1 case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Support Blocking a user just because she is queer and feminist, unable to be sysop. Blocking a steward... what the h..? Pórokhov (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support per Prax and acagastya. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 14:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Support per requester.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Support. TE/CS does not seem to get that amwiki is not the wiki of Ethiopa, but instead the wiki of Amharic-speaking people worldwide, despite that point being repeatedly made here.
    He seems to have first acknowledged that WMF policy governs all, but then made arguments justifying decisions based on Ethiopian law/culture, without no comment about the invalidity of those decisions. The homophobic personal attack comments quoted above and below make it clear that he personally shares these opinions.
    He claims to have apologized for the clear personal attacks that have been quoted (did he?), but does not seem to acknowledge that they are totally inappropriate and against policy either.
    What would happen if someone attempts to create the article "Homosexuality in Ethiopia" on amwiki? Can we really expect him to be able to have an NPOV? How about other things in Ethiopian culture or law that are contrary to U.S. law or WMF policy? Any of his future edits would need careful review for POV problems or, worse, WMF policy violations. Is anyone ready to do that (in Amharic)?
    As someone pointed out, plenty of priests did plenty of good while at the same time molesting children. That does not change society's right to protect itself from future bad acts by the offenders by removing their access. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What you still fail to appreciate is that in Ethiopia and among all Amharic speakers worldwide Amharic is seen as something intrinsically Ethiopian, whereas homosexuality is seen as something intrinsically un-Ethiopian and always seen being promoted and advocated by foreign interests. I don't see how banning me is going to change this perception, but whatever. It is also a perception borne out by the observation that both of the attempts at pov-pushing for homosexual advocacy that I deleted in 2017 and 2018, were easily recognizable as google translations produced by foreign people who cannot even speak one word in Amharic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You've clearly demonstrated that you do not understand the fundamental issue that people are discussing on this page. Nihlus 07:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes because you have not clearly demonstrated anything to me. No one seems to be able to explain to me clearly in a way that I too can understand your issue; or your concept of Amharic not being Ethiopian, or your concept that the laws agreed to in San Francisco trump the morality of every other location on Earth, allowing you to disregard and scoff at their local laws and culture in the name of homosexual activism. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These are private websites run by a foundation that owns them. They set the rules that everyone must follow, specifically the rules on nondiscrimination (resolution). It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. How is this not clear? Which part of this are you failing to understand? Nihlus 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the private foundation been coopted by some faction with political purposes like trying to push homosexual issue on Africa? Or is this just how some commenters in here would see it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you being serious? Nihlus 02:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Oppose Oppose Presumably this would have been requested long ago had it been based on the actions of the Til Eulenspiegel account or this individual's illegitimate sockpuppets. Where is the evidence that this is controversial among the editors of the Amharic Wikipedia? I'm not seeing any references to individuals who are active at am:wp; neither Teles nor MarcoAurelio has many edits there, and all of their edits appear to be related to interwiki stuff, like renaming users and warning vandals who don't write in Amharic. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is likely not controversial amongst the editors of the Amharic Wikipedia, as homophobia is a crime in Ethiopia both legally and culturally. Note there are less than 10 actually active Amharic editors; see this. The issue is that Til Eulenspiegel enforced a policy (that he wrote) which was against the Wikimedia Foundation's goal and that of Wikimedia projects, as well as being highly bigoted and persecutive. Vermont (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really mean "homophobia is a crime in Ethiopia" or something else like "homosexuality is a crime" or "homophobia is the norm"? "Homophobia is a crime" doesn't make much sense considering what else you said. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose Til Eulenspiegel has made the most contribution for Amharic Wikipedia since 2005. His articles, as far as I know, are not about sexual orientation, one way or the other. Please take that into your consideration before you make your decision. He is very invaluable to the continuation of our Wikipedia. Hgetnet (talk)
    "most contribution" is not a good reason to shoo off other users, abuse admin privs, bully any sect of people, go against the WMF goal, and to justify the actions on a failed attempt to understand how the law works. I can draw the parallels to those hypocritical priests who try to preach peace and love, but are child molesters: both have done good in front of people, but their bad actions have mostly gone unnoticed which should not be ignored as it does more harm than good.
    acagastya 05:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose I do not see that we are demonstrating the ability for this editor to edit poorly, or to edit contrary to encyclopaedic standards. I have not seen abusive attacks by this user in open spaces, though do see that they are "vociferous" on their user talk page. I would not wish to see this editor to gain administrative rights when they are unable to be neutral in their determinations, and seem to make community decisions based on their location and their beliefs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose: For the global banning reason is not appropriate to its requirement, here I stand to oppose this unneutral request. The view of Ethiopia may be not as open as the Wikipedians' majority. However, personal thoughts, the penalty in amwp is enough for the admin's rights is hard to come by indeed. This is intolerable for a user who did nothing in other language but was banned. The community should obey the AGF, and respect the personal opinion in Homosexuality.
    Although this user did use incorrectly through banning users in amwp, he got his punishment over there. Refer to the Concept of Double Jeopardy, here I ask the community to review the opinion and oppose this request.—— 𓋹 謹此敬上 05:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose: Same opinion to だ*ぜ. --Mend My Way 07:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose: Technically, this user meets all three criteria for a community global ban, but I am not at all pleased with the reasoning for satisfying criteria 3. While Til is blocked indefinitely from Wikisource, the circumstances of that block are rather unsettling. Seems Til got in a dispute with one of the Wikisource admins and the admin blocked Til solely in relation to that dispute. Initially, it was a short block, but it was escalated to an indefinite block because Til called this admin an asshole for making an involved block. Nothing about the disagreement is troubling except that some brief and incredibly frivolous disagreement prompted an indefinite block by an involved party. Without that rather inappropriate indef, this would not be suitable for a community global ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose: Not yet. Yes, this is concerning and I strongly disagree with his ideas. But this type should ideally be dealt with the Foundation itself. Additionally, I wonder: I do remember cases (nothing like this though) where communities at a particular Wikipedia has proposed somewhat one-sided policies. Does the am.wikipedia community disagree with him? Push him off then (or is that community dormant?). Anyway, he's lost his flags, and I'd wait for some time to see whether he'll then understand. Leaderboard (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose - Global bans are meant to be reserved for the most abusive people when all other avenues of recourse have failed, not people who happen to be born in a less "woke" country than others. This user has had a problematic history for sure, but I am not seeing a pattern of willing abuse that would warrant a global ban. Even while this RfC has been open, the user has been editing productively on their home project. Now, I do think that we should continue to say very clearly that discrimination based on sexual orientation (among other factors) is absolutely unacceptable on Wikimedia. But a large portion of the world has been raised to believe the contrary. We should be educating, not banishing, these people if we claim to be a global movement. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, while I can't say whether or not he was born in Ethiopa, when he was evading his block on the English Wikipedia he was using US IP addresses. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it from an actual American ISP or VPN provider? Saederup92 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There were a couple of Verizon ones, in Virginia - eg this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the information, but my broader point is still that there are people across the world who are raised in different cultures and with a different system of beliefs than us. We should focus on preventing discriminatory behaviour, not policing what users can think. The discriminatory behaviour here was blocking a user based on their potentially-LGBT username, for which Til Eulenspiegel was desysopped and warned. I think that is a proportional response for now. If discriminatory behaviour continues, then I would support a global ban. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean I would actually very gladly be willing to reconsider and change my !support choice to something else and let Til get another chance and be a constroctive part of the community if there's a willingness from Til to change his way of thinking on this matter. Saederup92 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mean to badger, but I don't think anyone here is trying to police what he can think. Beeblebrox said it well: "It's ok to have extreme opinions, it is not ok to weaponize them to control a project". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with the badgering; between you and Rschen I think I might be giving too little weight to their past behavioural issues that are entirely separate from cultural differences. I'll think about this some more. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I might think that if this was the only problem, but he was indefinitely blocked from enwiki, was almost indefinitely blocked from wikidata (and said a bunch of racist stuff there)... at some point we have to decide that the editor just cannot work with other people. --Rschen7754 09:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose Not now. The individual used pejorative language, mostly as an IP, as determined by checkuser, but their first language is not English and it is unclear if they understood the full meaning of the slang. The language barrier would seem to be at least part of the problem. This is not just an individual issue, it is an issue of the Amharic wiki, which on any given month has between 2-9 editors holding down the entire wiki by themselves. [8] A harsh initial response here might have a chilling effect on the rest of the wiki, and willingness of other Amharic speakers to contribute. (We have not heard anything from other members of the wiki, about how they view the situation.) On the other hand, the user has been very willing to explain their cultural concerns and the reasons for their actions. A collaborative approach now might lend understanding to dealing with this issue on other language wikis. Would support mentoring or conflict resolution. They need understanding and guidance on how to integrate with a global community. Some question has been raised about the user's fluency in English, so I am striking the part about language barrier. Need independent review of actions on other wikis and how they dovetail into global standards.Neotarf (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC) (updated)—Neotarf (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't mention their blocking of a steward, community ban on enwp, history of xwiki disruptive editing and attacks, and (continued) refusal to abude by policy. Please scroll down and read their responses to many of the questions asked below if you haven't already. Vermont (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neotarf: I see where you are coming from, and I can see that that needs to be addressed locally to a certain extend. Point is, that if someone happens to be fluent in Amharic, but who is NOT influenced by Ethiopian law (e.g. an American citizen living in America) could very well write an article on the Amharic Wikipedia about a topic that is banned in Ethiopia. It is the Amharic(-language) Wiki, not the Ethiopia-wiki. I would be very concerned if a graphical article about a pornographic article on the Amharic wikipedia would be illegal on the Amharic Wikipedia. Yes, it might get the Amharic wikipedia blocked in Ethiopia, but it is not something that the Amharic Wikipedia should enforce on 'their' articles. I can also see that editors who are in Ethiopia should be careful with what they edit.
    But all of that is not an excuse to block 'random' editors when you get into disagreements with them on other wikis, or (randomly?) block a user with a username who never has edited (and maybe never will edit) on 'your' wiki, and where in none of these cases Ethiopian law has any jurisdiction on these editors (block a, say, American user and generally en.wikipedia editor with a username that is (and I would argue 'might be') 'illegal' (and likely 'maybe offensive' at worst) to Ethiopian law on Amharic Wikipedia (which may not even be possible), or block an editor who removes a link from the Amharic article on en.wikipedia and who might remove the same link on the corresponding article on Amharic Wikipedia - an action which is very unlikely to be illegal even in Ethiopia). And even if that offensive username of the, say, American citizen is actually illegal in Ethiopia, the American person behind the account (who cannot be identified unless Ethiopia has access to CheckUser accounts - God help us if that is the case) could still visit Ethiopia without Ethiopian law getting to them. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neotarf: Are you talking about Til when you say his first language is not English? Because I think Til is American. He is certainly a native speaker of English, see his alternative account user page.[9]. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I knew I'd seen that before but couldn't remember where - native English, near-native Amharic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's from Codex Sinaiticus's enwiki user page, initially added in 2005 as en, am-3, changed to am-4 later. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 17:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you browse Til's contriutions[10] you'll find he edited a number of articles on American culture, plus articles on Virginia, the Blue Ridge Mountains, etc. The area his IP addresses originated from. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow. So it's a cultural issue, but not the one we thought. Sorry losing connection, will try to expand on this later. —Neotarf (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at a few of their edits and I am not convinced about their fluency with English. Someone on the mailing list described them as having "intermediate" English. If they are not actually Ethiopian or of Ethiopian descent, they do appear to be an insider to those religious and cultural traditions.

    When I was doing the arbitration report feature for the Signpost I spent an average of 20 hours a week going through the diffs and opinions. I don't have that kind of time now, but I will just list some concerns. (1) This situation was brought to the Wikimedia mailing list after being discussed outside Wikipedia on a Telegram discussion group. It is not clear whether any groups that deal with Africa or small wikis have been informed, or given a change to discuss this off-wiki. (2) A lot of statements have been attributed to the user, but when you look at the diffs it is an IP, and with no context. The sockpuppet investigation did not identify any IPs associated with this user. (3) Much information has been divulged here and elsewhere linking the user with a specific IP/ geographical location. Given the sensitivity of this topic in some areas, is this really wise? Isn't this against the Privacy policy? (4) I did spend some time trying to figure out what happened on WikiData and it seems the user had a list of fruit/ taxons compiled by another user, and they were trying to get the Amharic articles linked on WikiData, or get some idea of whether they were being treated as fruit or taxons. The triggering incident seems to have been watermelon, which was among several fruit articles delinked by someone in WikiData. am:ሃብሃብ (There is now a different Amharic watermelon article linked in WikiData.) It looks like the questions had gone unanswered for three months when the user tried again to get an answer, and ended up blocked. (5) The user has asked on this page for information about this process and how long it takes to get "gonged", an apparent reference to en:The Gong Show. They were answered with a profanity. Could someone link to the process (is it an RfC that is closed by someone after a specific length of time, or what) and to the San Fran Ban page, or whatever is being used here? (6) Several users have mentioned blocking a steward. Was the user aware this was a steward, were they informed or is there some way to tell? There were a lot of unfortunate blocks here, that were done without trying to talk to the person first, some done by the user and some done to the user. Contrast a current case at the English arbitration, where the admin was talked to, the policy explained, and eventually after three days reversed their edit. From the outside this really looks like disparate treatment between admins with European background and admins with African background. (7) I am really, really appreciative of how difficult it is to stop disruption - after all I spent a year dragged into a reprise of the MOS hyphen thing - and I do sympathize with the people who are trying to figure out what is going on. But there has been a lot of criticism of the global bans lately and even recently losing a dedicated employee, I think it worth while to get this right. —Neotarf (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will address your points:
    1. I'm not sure if any groups regarding Africa have been specifically notified, but small-wiki editors (myself included) are definitely aware of this considering he blocked a steward and the global ban discussion. Discussing it offwiki is unnecessary and not transparent; this is a global issue that will be redressed with a global ban discussion.
    2. Most of the statements attributed to this user, as in the vast majority, are from one of their accounts, not IP's.
    3. Saying general geographic location is not a violation of the privacy policy.
    4. He was not blocked for asking questions, as you imply. He was blocked for repeated edit warring on multiple occasions, harassment, and ad hominem.
    5. Saying he was answered with a profanity is highly misleading. It was answered, later and not primarily, with: "I think this can be classified as shitposting". See Global bans for the appropriate policy. I'm not sure what you mean by "San Fran Ban".
    6. He was completely aware the user was a steward. Even if he wasn't a steward, it's still completely unacceptable to block someone for disagreeing with you. No, this user isn't being targeted for his background, and this isn't comparable to the enwiki issue you're referring to. This isn't a "reversed their edit" situation. They literally enforced Ethiopian law (which they wrote into a policy) on a Wikimedia project banning LGBT people from editing, blocked a steward for "Only here to force people to be offended", which essentially means promoting LGBT rights which is outlined in the nondiscrimination policy.
    7. I'm not sure where this criticism of the global bans are (note there's always criticism of everything on Wikipediocracy and related sites), but I haven't seen any. I'm also not sure what you mean by "recently losing a dedicated employee".
    Thank you, Vermont (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The "San Fran Ban" is slang for a ban by the WMF itself (from the head office in San Francisco). Those bans are very different from what is being discussed here, starting with the fact that they are not publicly discussed and are not subject to consensus. 05:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And once again, his alternate account's userpage says English is his native language. I've always assumed he was American given some of the articles he's edited on American culture, geography and Native Americans. Doug Weller (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting question, although I should think the way a person uses the language - vocabulary and syntax - would be a better indicator of their English level than their location or titles edited. For instance Simple English Wikipedia uses a vocabulary of 850-1500 words, which is about a fifth grade level, whether immigrants/non-native speakers or native speakers who are actually fifth graders, or possibly even adults who are not at ABE or GED levels. The Babel language boxes also may not be a good indicator, as these boxes are not necessarily social but are used to enable different functions on WikiData. I have even seen users with a statement on their Babel template that the boxes are not meant to be informational.

    This user:Til Eulenspiegel managed only nine edits on Wikisource before being indeffed. He moved "The promised key" to "The promise key", with an edit summary indicating it is the correct title, but was quickly reverted by EncycloPetey, so TE added it as an alternate title: "The Promised Key (AKA The Promise Key)". Again EP reverted, then TE restored, with an edit summary using Jamaican English. TE started a discussion on EncycloPetey's talk page, saying "I knew of it long before 1988 and that is the actual title" (this being some 30 years ago). EncycloPetey then started a discussion on TE's talk page asking for a source but when TE provided a link to google books, EncycloPetey restored his preferred version and blocked TE. TE asked to be unblocked, pointing out that he had provided the requested source, but unfortunately he could not resist calling EncycloPetey a swear word at the same time, which I think very unprofessional, although there is much worse language on this very page, that no one has objected to. Oddly enough, the alternate title is in WikiData, and it was EncycloPetey who added it.

    "Promise Key" is a central text for the Rastafari religious movement, a movement that started in Jamaica, where they speak Jamaican English, which diverged from mainstream English about the time of Shakespeare, and which is sometimes "not significantly mutually intelligible with English". Ethiopia was central to Rastafari movement, and starting in 1955, Jamaicans were invited to migrate to Ethiopia as part of the "Back to Africa" movement.[11] So by now you are probably wondering if there is a Rastifari article on Amharic Wikipedia and if so, who wrote it. Yes. Also the Promise Key.

    So if Til Eulenspiegel is so fluent with English, why hasn't he figured out how to appeal his block on WikiSource? Of course he was frustrated. He was concerned about people who were looking for the text under the alternate name. But it is not right to call someone a bad name. What if he apologized for the bad name? Wikisource has an unblock template, he could apologize for the bad word and use the template to ask a different person for unblock. (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I would indeed like to be unblocked from WikiSource. The reason I cannot request there, is that the nice EncycloPetey person also muzzled me from making any appeal on my talkpage at Wikisource, and nothing to do with which languages I may be fluent in. As several here have noted the unjust nature of this block being used as a technical pretext to ban me, I would be grateful if anyone could reverse that frivolous block, from which EncycloPetey unilaterally stripped me of any right of appeal. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose Who is judging and what are we judging here? Different cultures have different cultural values. I imagine that many US-american Wikipedians could get blocked in Europe because of their attitude towards death penalty. Many Wikipedians are completely against the showing of nudity on Wikimedia projects because of their believes. Yet they are entitled to their opinion, a opinion that might offend others. The accused' opinion about LGTB is extreme. Yet the blocked account on the Amharic Wikipedia has been unblocked. I think he learned by all this that his opinion is not accetable in many other parts of the world and that he should listen to other peoples opinion. A global ban for all projects because of one's believes? No. And what about all Arab/Palestinian Wikipedians that sport a babel saying that they love Hitler? --Gereon K. (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not based solely off their cultural beliefs; rather, it's mostly due to their continued lack of constructive communication with other editors and unacceptable actions such as their enforcement of Ethiopian law onwiki and unfounded blocking of a steward. In regard to the idea that this view is like any other, and that American Wikimedians could be blocked for their views on the death penalty, this is not about political views. He blocked someone over their sexuality per a policy they unilaterally created referencing Ethiopian law, and continued by blocking a steward who questioned the block and insulted users on their talk page. It is not simply a question of cultural difference; it is unacceptable, inflammatory behavior that has been an issue for multiple years (block logs on many projects) and blatant discrimination. Vermont (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vermont: "Their"? I thought we were talking about User Til Eulenspiegel? The global ban of which other users are we talking about here? --Gereon K. (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of singular "their" is perfectly acceptable English grammar - see en:Singular they. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Gereon K.: TE/CS's global block is not being discussed because of their beliefs. If that is what you think, you have conveniently skipped all the discussion about their abusive actions on various wikis. It is not their beliefs which got them in this situation, but the ill-planned and improperly thought actions based on their beliefs which got them in trouble. Your analogy fails because the examples you mentioned: people are not abusing their rights because of their beliefs. I would do you one better: believing that people accused of adultery should be stoned to death does not cause the individual any problems. At least it should not. But actually stoning people because of their beliefs is what gets them in trouble. Do not equate beliefs and actions.
      acagastya 02:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose Per Gereon K. I'm strictly against the block of QueerEcofeminist and the things Codex Sinaicus wrote about homosexuality but I think in a global world and a global movement we need to talk to each other and we have to argue for our oppinions. We have to convince other people of our ethical values and we should not fight them. --Holder (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This global ban discussion is over a lot more than simply ethical values. Please see the initial global ban proposal as well as comments Til Eulenspiegel made below. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vermont: How many times do you think that it is appropriate to put a challenge to an opposer's comment? The place for extended comment would be in your vote, or the comments section. At what point does it becoming discouraging to voice an opinion?  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Each oppose I replied to (4 of 11 currently) posed a different argument as to why they should not be globally banned. I felt it would be beneficial to address those; if you believe it is too much, I will no longer do so. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • This user has created countless (good) articles on . I think that the decision to take the rights away from him was warrented as he abused them. But I don't know if banning someone who has obviously spend A LOT of life time trying to make a wikiproject better should not be completely banned from editing in all projects. I say this as someone who is involved in the LGBT User group. Let's maybe just give him one more chance. He can continue to edit but if he insults another user again or writes homophobic remarks then he will be banned from --Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 00:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to note he's been given roughly a dozen chances on several projects. Take a look at his blocklogs that are listed, they're all for the same thing. Praxidicae (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am abstaining from !voting as having had a significant disagreement with User:Til Eulenspiegel on en.wikipedia, and having been on the receiving side of a block on am.wikipedia by TE, but will give an extended remark:
In the beginning of September 2014 I (and other editors) performed a series of edits that were heavily opposed to by TE. The talkpage discussion there showed extreme ownership regarding the subject, and discussion was more seated in discrediting the opposing editors as ignorant and/or unqualified than in policy based arguments. That discussion resulted in an AN/I thread (initiated by me) where the editor was blocked (and the block was extended) due to general toxic behaviour during these discussions.
Two days later, out of the blue, I was blocked on am.wikipedia (my only edits to am.wikipedia were from 2008; 2 to my userspace, 1 XWiki spam revert), using a, to me, rather offensive block notice: "Preemtive measure, user engaged in Anti-Amharic campaign on en obstructing access to AmharicDictionary & GoodAmharicBooks". Reflecting practice from en.wikipedia, such behaviour is sufficient (if it would happen on en.wikipedia alone) to be summarily stripped from your sysop bit, and I would have (and actually might have) argued that stewards could/should have performed such actions based on such cross-wiki behaviour in 2014 already.
I brought this block to one of the stewards (off wiki), and expressed my extreme discontent with that. The steward communicated this to TE. Nonetheless it took 5 months before the block was lifted (with steward communication being totally ignored for months because .. the request was not made in Amharic on the am.wikipedia).
TE has shown extreme ownership regarding anything relating to Amharic and Ethiopia, very broadly construed. That behaviour alone is totally unacceptable, and seeing their lack of compliance to local (or global) policies and guidelines I do not think TE should be editing any wikipedia until they can show to follow said policies and guidelines. I obviously agree with the (in my humble opinion long overdue) removal of all of their advanced rights. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am abstaining from voting for being somehow involved on it, but I tend to agree with a ban or at least a ban that would allow editing, but prevent them from receiving any advanced rights. I was blocked for defending an user that suffered a block justified by their sexual orientation. The case here is simple. We should decide whether there was or not prejudice against homosexuals. I am not in favor of someone holding advanced rights that insists on their hate speech even after being asked to rethink their position. I don’t think I have more arguments than these. It’s just too much clear for me, concerning projects’ mission and the vision of Wikimedia Foundation on discrimination against sexual orientation. If they are not enough, maybe I am wrong.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 01:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have stated that the vast majority of Ethiopians or Amharic speakers consider homosexuals subhuman, and this is an unassailable fact that needs to be considered. I have done my utmost to build the Amharic Wikipedia since 2005, and in all those years User:QueerEcofeminist is the only person I ever blocked for this, as there were no other violators . My management of the Amharic Wikipedia is ended. All I mean to do now is continue to create Amharic articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that Wikimedia is not governed by discriminatory laws and in fact this policy prohibits your behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. Which behavior? QueerEcofeminist is already unblocked , I can no longer block anyone else, and I know of no other blocked accounts at issue here. So I am sure it won't happen again. I just want to build the Amharic Wikipedia as I have been doing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated insinuation that LGBT+ people are "subhuman", your intentional discrimination and enacting policy in opposition of policy and your several dozen blocks cross-wiki for harassment and intimidation of people on the basis of their sexuality. The fact that you do not understand it is evidence that you hold views too strongly to be a productive editor on any Wikimedia project and are contrary to Wikimedia's goals. And in case you didn't bother to read this discussion, it's not just your poor blocks (which go far beyond QEF, but Beetsra and blocking an editor who you were in dispute with.) Praxidicae (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll note you weren't even the one to recognize your behavior as wrong, nor your action since RadiX is the one who unblocked QEF despite your protest and QEF never filed any unblock request because you revoked talk page access, so how did you expect them to do so? Praxidicae (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stated there "No, actually homosexuals are considered subhuman by the vast majority of Ethiopians." It's not an insinuation, it is a sociological fact about attitudes toward homosexuality in Ethiopian culture. Even if you don't believe it, I think the English wp article on "lgbt in Ethiopia" mentions this, and I can confirm it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well all your subsequent comments as well as previous comments referring to people as specific slurs says otherwise. Would you like to explain what got revdel'd on English Wikipedia and ultimately resulted in your indefinite block? This might refresh your memory. Praxidicae (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was five years ago, I have forgotten what was revdeled on enwp then. But it is indeed as I say don't you believe the enwp article on lgbt in Ethiopia? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sociological attitudes of Ethiopians, while interesting, are completely irrelevant here. See my comment below. Just because (you assert) loads of people agree with you doesn't mean you can go breaking WMF rules. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the wmf rule when I did it, but as I say, it cannot happen again as it is since I cannot block anyone and am just a regular user now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hard cheese old bean. You need to come back in six months and unequivocally apologise for what you've done. I'm all for second chances, I had one on enwiki myself, but you need to express genuine understanding and remorse for what you've done and I'm afraid you've repeatedly failed to display that. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You want remorse, ok. I'm sorry I broke the wmf rule on lgbt, I apologize and now that I am aware of it,and also since I can no longer, block, I'm sure I will never violate it again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point must me be noted that Til Eulenspiegel said "I'm sure I will never violate it again" not because they have learned something from here, but asserted that this is because they don't have admin privs anymore. That would be leaving a fox in the hen house.
acagastya 05:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that she wasn't a "violator" because she didn't violate any rules. I believe that humans are, by and large, good, so even though I disagree with the assertion that "the vast majority of Ethiopians [...] consider homosexuals subhuman", let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's true and I'm wrong about humanity. You still broke the WMF rules. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I do not see where User:QE ever filed any unblock request as was stated above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were attempting to initiate a discussion about the block at amwiki; instead of communicating, you removed their ability to edit their talk page or send emails through the project. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 23:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit-conflicted) You deleted it when you revoked their talk page access: the content remains in the deletion log. Note that this RfC does not only concern your behaviour as an adminstrator on amwiki, but also behaviour raised elsewhere. stwalkerster (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I may try to empathize with you, Til Eulenspiegel: The views you hold against homosexuals are probably tantamount to the views a lot of people would hold against pedohpiles. If I'd imagine that I found someone promoting pedophilia on Wiki projects I would try to block them and stop their behavior. If I would then be prosecuted and had my rights taken away because of what I did, I would double down and I would defend what I did. And I would be angry at the WMF and think that perversion is forcefully promoted internationally. So I understand you, I guess. Homosexuality though means that two consenting adults who are for reasons outside of their power attracted to the same sex engage in a relationship. They should be free and able to do that. No one gets harmed by them. And they can today contribute to society in all ways that heterosexual people can. I hope that you will some day change your mind on this issue.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 00:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite . According to Ethiopian culture (and law), bestiality, incest and homosexuality are all the same: prohibited unions. I or you can't change this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Til, in any case I was just trying to help you here. Bestiality and incest are absolutely not the same thing as homosexuality. The first two don't involve consenting adults, the third one does. In any case I will not engage in the discussion any further.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 00:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mayhaps not the first two, but I can imagine at some point the last one not being so despised. Culture is never static. One only has to look at any major civilisation over the past hundred years to see that. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well who knows, Jéské… Many Ethiopians believe man may begin something, but only God can allow it to succeed. Nothing is fulfilled by rushing it but only when it is of due age. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Law of the land has never, and should never interfere with the functioning of WMF projects (except for the location where the servers are located.) You have demonstrably failed to understand that.
acagastya 05:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am the one whom you blocked on amwiki, for using Queer in the name. I have few questions for you and now you are no longer the admin nor the crat. Now you are almost similar user like me, let's talk now.
  • Why I was blocked? what came into your mind? do you really think that even from such a far distance from another project I will make harm to your wiki? or make everyone homosexual?
  • Interestingly when I haven't really edited a single page on amwiki, Do you really think that me being active on some other project would damage amwiki? --QueerEcofeminist (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you want to know what was I thinking when I blocked you. Well as I have said, if you had come on English Wikipedia with that name in 2005 when I started, I think you may have been blocked there, and asked nicely to find a new name by the people in charge then, because they were very serious about the principal of everyone appearing non partisan encyclopedists and not signaling strong allegiance to advocacy of any cause, especially with a user name. Now obviously I see that wmf has changed its sentiments and policies on that point since 2005 and now believes quite the opposite, and applies this to languages from a vastly different perspective and culture, but I was unaware until now and not keeping up with these kind of changes in wmf thinking. If I had known the change, I certainly would not have blocked you to violate the policy deliberately. In fact from 2005 until October 2018 when you changed your name, not a single other username I have ever seen has referred to a sexual preference or orientation. It had never come up. So I was thinking it was still disallowed and this block would still be justifiable. I see that under current conditions of policy I should never have blocked you, and extend my heartfelt apology and best wishes. Thus I should not have blocked Teles for arguing with me about the block, and I hope you and he would forgive me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Til Eulenspiegel:

  • Basically you accept that you were unaware of the policies and charged with prejudices around homosexuality?
  • Additionally for your information, word queer is used to denote several meanings, including what queer ecofeminist is can be found here QueerEcofeminism by Greta Gaard. It has almost nothing to do with sexual acts.
  • As now you are aware of the fact that my name was renamed and by renamer which means it was done by renaming rights holder, if they did not find my name objectionable and with the fact that they did rename my name globally, which itself tells my name is acceptable, then how come you decided that, I am here to make everyone in Ethiopia homosexual with my gay propaganda? that too even without editing on amwiki?
  • On top of that, you blocked me leaving no options than approaching somewhere else, then to put icing on that by you further blocking one steward who came to ask you politely about my block, and made homophobic remarks, do you find all of your acts justifiable even now? --QueerEcofeminist (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suspect you of trying to make anyone homosexual, never said that, and I have outlined my rationale, though it turned out to be faulty in light of current policy, but what I said about the situation in Ethiopia is correct. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Til Eulenspiegel: Now that I see this response from you, I am very interested in hearing why you blocked me in 2014. I had not edited am.wikipedia for 6 years, and certainly not on pages that were connected to the subject of our dispute on en.wikipedia. In fact, this block of User:QueerEcofeminist is (somewhat) similar to your block of me 5 years ago. Would you mind to elaborate on that? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only vaguely recall having some dispute with you elsewhere in 2014 but not specifically what it was about. Blocking you on am wp over it was going way overboard and egregiously wrong of me at the time since you don't even edit there, and I realize this now also. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Fair enough. I agree that it was a long time ago. It still worries me that these are repeated lapses of judgement of someone who is a (local) admin. On en.wikipedia we are all, within reason, expected to also be up-to-date with global policy. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra Given all TE/CS' grandstanding here, I'd like to point out (though I was not around during this time) that your block was on September 12 2014 and is noted as a "Preemtive measure, user engaged in Anti-Amharic campaign on en obstructing access to AmharicDictionary & GoodAmharicBooks, which coincidentally was two days after TE was blocked by Drmies and the same day that talk page access was revoked and subsequently restored on enwiki and just two days after what appears to be your first interaction with them. But I think we're all getting side tracked with what this is about, it's not the abuse of the tools, which was quickly taken care of but their overall behavior on many projects, not just their home wiki. I'd also like to note that the crocodile tears are meaningless, as history has shown they do not learn from their mistakes and while some of these diffs may have been years ago, it's clear that this is a frequent problem. Praxidicae (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: that is what I wanted to get noticed by discussing this situation of 5 years ago: cross-wiki vindictive behaviour. As stated above, I abstain from !voting (see en:WP:INVOLVED), but I want it to be clear that this behaviour of the last couple of days is not isolated. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: There's nothing in en:WP:INVOLVED that prevents you !voting - it just prohibits you from using the admin tools in relation to the case. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: I would see myself !voting support (if I would, not sure even about that), as retaliation as I am involved here, even if that is not per sé against policy. There is no cabal and such stuff.... —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped to be allowed to continue building the Amharic project in peace now that I am just a regular user, but I can see now from the vote counts I will probably be global banned soon, in which case all I can hope is that the project will fare well with the other editors without me, and give it up. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Billinghurst[edit]

  • The case for a permanent block at English Wikisource in my opinion is weak, and involved no community discussion, and blocked by someone involved in the dispute and granted no ability to appeal the block, so it should be noted, but not as strong evidence. Included in that is my opinion that any admin should be more resilient to be called an asshole on a user's own talk page, especially as the hat will have fitted on at least one occasion for any decent administrator.
  • The case at English Wikipedia appears to be fair and the community held a good process that resulted in the exclusion of this person from their wiki. The consensus of our communities is what guides us.
  • The user seems to think that amWP is predominantly the wiki of the country of Ethiopia, rather than the wiki in the Ethiopian-language.
  • The user's approach on their talk page at WD can be seen as pretty poor (I didn't read enough to get a full understanding of what was happening), though I note that WD did not permanently block the user. I did not see that user had made such comment off their user talk page, so they have shown some restraint. There are many good edits at WD. Further re their editing dispute at WD, TE is not the first and will not be the last to have either that dispute on topic matter, or subject matter, they can be contentious, and the other individuals are less than pristine in this matter.
  • No one has identified problematic editing at amWP, just their issues with the user's administrative actions, and their approach. Not to say that it isn't there, it has yet to be clearly identified.
  • I too have had disagreements with the user as an administrator at amWP, though saw that more about independence of the wiki, and the thought of the wiki.
  • I agree with the removal of advanced rights and believe that it is unlikely that they could hold them again as they have been unable to separate their beliefs and prejudices from the ability to manage diversity of positions in the writing of a NPOV encyclopaedia. Being an administrator and reaching consensus, where you have an opinion, occasionally requires a decision to be made different from your own opinion. 04:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I will note that at least in my mind as a Wikidata administrator, while I did not make my last block indefinite, if I had seen one more similar incident, I would have made it permament, and I think the block would have stuck. --Rschen7754 08:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata deleted edits[edit]

@Nick: These are the deleted edits from Wikidata, all are to items now deleted; reasons for their deletion not explored  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 11:10, 11 July 2018 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Q15946513 (‎Restore revision 709093996 by QuickStatementsBot)
  • 11:09, 11 July 2018 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Q15946513 (‎Undo revision 709093996 by QuickStatementsBot (talk))
  • 00:44, 29 November 2017 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Q44017563 (‎Undo revision 600237981 by [[Special:Contributions/&beer&love|&beer&love]] ([[User talk:&beer&love|talk]]))
  • 12:01, 30 September 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Q27056154 (‎Removed link to [jamwiki]: Category:Aata)
  • 12:00, 30 September 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Q27056154 (‎Created a new Item)
  • 11:37, 3 September 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Q26772253 (‎Removed link to [tiwiki]: ኤርትራ)
I think one of the more recent blocks was a result of the revdel'd/OS'd content here. Praxidicae (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: indeed yes, and it was later reposted at [12]. Since amwiki is its own wiki, not even stewards really had any standing to revdel-it, as racist as the stuff was. --Rschen7754 08:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: since you requested the revdeled content. --Rschen7754 18:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who deleted these edits or why, or what it has to do with me doing anything wrong. And again, I stated what most Ethiopians would consider , but I did not say they are or that I think they are subhuman. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note along with my previous comments it's not just about this user's administrative mistakes but their abhorrent behavior on many projects, specifically the following on Wikidata: [13], [14], [15]. The fact that you don't know why you were blocked for the comments you made were are revdel'd is problematic. Praxidicae (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the profane angry remarks in 2017 you just linked, I have apologized and again apologize, and assure you that is over. As for the six edits sDrewth says were deleted above, that is what I meant when I said I don't know what it has to do with me doing anything wrong . Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, since I only ever blocked one name for that reason, and now that I have been made aware of the current wmf rule I am deeply sorry, and we can know it won't ever happen again, I ask you all to reconsider your votes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont linked a policy I wrote years ago, with other admins' support, but it makes no mention of lgbt whatsoever, nor does any other policy/guideline we have had. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, TE, I'm finding the idea that upon being presented a relevant WMF policy you'd change your viewpoints so suddenly preposterous. Is there any other indication you've actually changed? Hiàn (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not preposterous - upon learning of this policy, I deeply regret violating it, which this was and will remain the only time I did that on am. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment the deleted contributions were requested by Nick which is why they are pasted, and I think that it is reasonable to surmise that as deleted items, that is the reason for deletion, not for editing issues. There are more deleted edits for the Codex ... account, and they seem to be similarly to be to deleted items.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete policy violating Wikimedia Foundation terms?[edit]

I think this policy page (Google Translate seems clear enough) should be deleted as it is a blatant attempt to force policy in line with the laws of Ethiopia. The is not an Ethiopian project, is not run from Ethiopia, and is not subject to the laws of Ethiopia, and so "immorality" policy is not subservient to the laws of Ethiopia. This "policy" page, which was written by Til Eulenspiegel/Codex Sinaiticus, has clearly been used to violate the Wikimedia Foundation terms and conditions regarding inclusivity and to abuse an editor based solely on their sexuality. I've no idea what the proper process might be to propose the deletion - any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are trusting google translate for anything? I have added an accurate translation to the talkpage. The name of the policy means "pornography", not "immorality", unfortunately that is how google distorts every page it purportedly "translates" . Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This policy against allowing pornography on am-wp was supported by all the other admins there for years. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the translation, which I missed (though I see you did not translate the title). It changes nothing. The is not Ethiopian, it is Amharic. Individual Wikipedia projects are language-based not country-based, and their policies are not dictated by the laws of countries which use those languages. The applicable law is the law of California (which is where the servers are located) regardless of the language of a project. I also don't care how many admins have supported it - local Wikipedia admins do not have the power to override Wikimedia Foundation terms and conditions. Can you show me a consensus supporting the policy, a policy which you personally wrote? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not off hand, but you can see the page was protected by one admin, and revised by another. No one has complained about it before. So you don't take any cultural sensitivities into consideration with foreign languages any more? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People do take cultural sensitivities into consideration, yes, by community consensus. It does not give admins the right to unilaterally write local laws into Wikipedia projects - Wikipedia policies are not decided by admins. Maybe nobody has complained before, but given your chronic dictatorial approach and your power as an admin and bureaucrat (and your chronic bullying of those who do not share your opinions), I don't think that has much meaning. Anyway, it's being challenged now, so how about we wait and see what others have to say? If there's a consensus that your setting of policy was acceptable and that challenging it here at Meta is not appropriate, that's fine - but I do think it's an issue that needs to be considered. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused … Wikipedia policies are not decided by admins??? Don't French wp admins write the policies at French wp, and so forth in each language? If not who does ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, policies are decided by community consensus - admins merely have the power to enforce policies (by having access to the blocking, deleting and protecting tools), not to create them (or, to be more precise, admins have no more power to set policy than any editor in good standing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion to create the policy years ago I believe Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Past history shows that the Wikimedia Foundation does not care about any country's individual laws - for example, Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey and China. This speaks of the freedom of expression given which you are trying to impede. Leaderboard (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wikipedia and much of the internet have been blocked by the FDRE in Ethiopia multiple times in the past 3 years, sometimes for months … Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find it and show us it please? (There would also be the question of whether the policy violates the Wikimedia terms and conditions by trying to enforce local laws, which would render it inapplicable too, but that's for discussion.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example. Leaderboard (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not enforcing any national law but taking it in consideration, recognizing its provenience as justification for the model. As it explains, we cannot enforce the actual law over the internet. which entails imprisonment or fine, we would just go for a ten day block for similar behavior on the first offense, 30 day on the second. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excactly what kind of behaviour are you talking about? Saederup92 (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is referring to putting pornographic material on the wp. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are specifically writing some aspects of Ethiopian law into Wikipedia policy (with Wikipedia-based punishments), and that is not allowed. It also leaves wide open the definition of "pornography" and leaves it up to the blocking admin (in this case you) to interpret that. How is "pornography" defined in this case? Do you consider homosexuality to be a form of pornography? Do you consider the username "QueerEcofeminist" as pornographic? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see what pornography has to do with the blocking of QueerEcofeminist Saederup92 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What it actually says is "we are going to go by the Ethiopian definition of pornography" which is specifically defined in the code and summarized in the line that says "However, information of an artistic, literary or scientific character that is not intended only to deliberately stimulate sexual instincts, is permitted." There is no question with Ethiopians what pornography means. And no, I did not block User:Q for that policy but because I thought names like that had never been allowed, hadn't seen that they were or that anyone even tried it. My blocking edit summary shows what I was thinking. Vermont is who brought up the pornography policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, no, Wikimedia's terms and conditions are not subject to Ethiopian law - as you have been told multiple times, is not under Ethiopian jurisdiction. But next question then, does Ethiopian law consider homosexuality as pornographic? What does Ethiopian pornography law say about homosexuality? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The homosexuality laws are also in the code, in the section previous to the pornography section used a a definition reference on our page, so homosexual acts, pornography, would be separate crimes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me ask in a different way. Is there any policy relating to homosexuality? Is homosexuality covered by any policy pages that you are aware of? (I'm asking these questions because I want to understand exactly which aspects of Ethiopian law have been used as a basis for policy). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We have not ever written such a policy. This policy is not directly related to my block of User Q. except thanks to someone getting the wrong idea from the google translation. However if you think the policy should be revised we can work on it and solicit community input. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for the clarification. It seems, then, that the pornography policy page and the block of QueerEcofeminist are two separate issues, and that makes me less concerned about the policy page. I'll wait and see what others say here (and I might ask the opinion of the Stewards). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there never was a policy, why did you block QueerEcofeminist and Teles? Vermont (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same Saederup92 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Miniapolis 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. I agree that it seems to violate our terms of use. Perhaps we should ask the WMF? Doug Weller (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this policy really violate the Terms of Use? The actual Terms of Use never mention anything applicable to the policy being cited. People keep pointing to this page, yet that is a resolution creating a policy and said policy only concerns staff or contractors. At one point it did include "users" until a WMF staffer changed it. Seems the policy is meant to apply only to the Foundation in how it treats employees, rather than being there to protect volunteer contributors. Not sure a global policy protecting regular users would be especially wise either given that the existence of discrimination, especially with such a broad array of characteristics, can be highly subjective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This specifically applies to "users" and the community as a whole. It shouldn't need to be written as a policy nor should it have to be said, however the issues here are not only about amwiki's policies or administrative abuse from TE, it's about their overall behavior across many projects, including harassment and intimidation of other users. There's nothing subjective about repeatedly calling other users "faggots" or making derogatory remarks about their sexuality. Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my comments more carefully before responding. That was literally something I cited and explained. It is not a policy, but a resolution of the WMF board establishing a policy for the governing of the Foundation. That is why the policy is posted on the Foundation site. Said policy is the one that has since been changed by a WMF staffer to remove the reference to "users" and make it specifically about staff or contractors. My point here is that it does not seem the "non-discrimination policy" applies to regular contributors to Wikimedia projects. At one point it was worded in a way that suggested it did, but a staffer changed it to remove that language. If people want to justify global bans then it very much does need to be written as a policy. But for the very frivolous and petty block on Wikisource by an involved party in response to very mild insults prompted by a frivolous and petty block on Wikisource by the same involved party, Til wouldn't even be eligible for a global ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy (which the resolution linked above is part of): "It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project." (italics added) It quite clearly does apply to him. In regard to the Wikisource block, yes, if he were not blocked there he would not be eligible for a global ban. If he had not enforced Ethiopian law onwiki, blocked a steward without reason, threatened multiple people over his time editing, been community banned from enwiki, and blocked someone for their sexual orientation, he would also not be eligible for a global ban. This one factor does change that, yes, but it is by no means frivolous. He has extensive block logs on other projects, although no indefinite blocks still standing other than enwiki and enwikisource. Vermont (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TDA is correct, and I am not very often in agreement with him. The non-discrimination policy only applies to employees. It was not just edited by "a staffer", it was edited by Jrogers(WMF), of WMF legal. Likewise the Technical Code of Conduct only applies to spaces where staff is expected to work. So if your employer requires you to edit Wikipedia as part of your job duties, they are probably in violation of any local non-discrimination laws, like Title VI and Title IX. Neotarf (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • His block on WikiSource was definitely frivolous. The dispute focused on a proper title for some work. An admin held one position and Til held a different position. Both positions have support in sourcing. Said admin blocked him for "disruptive editing" because Til tried to add the alternate title and reverted when the admin undid the addition. It was only a 3-day block, but Til understandably looked unfavorably on an admin blocking him when the admin was party to the editing dispute. When Til called the admin an "asshole" for making an involved block, the admin indeffed him claiming harassment. You can see that all plainly just by looking at the contributions on WikiSource.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question by LakesideMiners[edit]

@Til Eulenspiegel: Could you explain the reason for this block? I looked through the IPs edits and I did not see anything block worthy at all. The reason why I am bringing this up is because the block reason was that the edits were against Ethiopian Law. LakesideMiners (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the non-Amharic ip mostly created porno articles that are deleted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But using reasons like the edit(s) going against Ethiopian Law really doesn't say a lot about what the person did. Saederup92 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that answer may or may not be correct, and thus, it is important to properly explain the reason of block and a note on the talk page. But what d you mean by creating "porno articles"?. And why have you been trying to enforce local laws on WMF projects? 20:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles made with google translate are usually deleted on most languages as they are unintelligible and the person who keeps making them gets blocked, and I also noted this one violates Ethiopian law. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so focused on whether or not stuff violates local law instead of whether or not it violates WMF/Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Saederup92 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their creation were gibberish and had to be deleted anyway, in addition to being illegal in the country where most readership is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Til Eulenspiegel: I checked with a stew to make sure that they were in fact pornographic. They said that the pages were NOT pornoraphic.(Also @Saederup92: I am pinging you as you are involved in this section of the conversation)LakesideMiners (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see them anymore, but I recall from 2017 they were total google gibberish and against the moral code Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LakesideMiners: So basically what Til is telling is completely bogus? Saederup92 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Saederup92:, yep. While the stew said it is best I don’t know what the content really was, they did confirm it was not porn. LakesideMiners (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Til Eulenspiegel: First you said porn, that was confirmed false, now you are saying it was just gibberish? Can you explain why you changed your reasoning all of a sudden? And also how you would remember something from 2017? Or is amwiki really that small that so few things happen on amwiki(that sentence sounds rude, but I don’t know how to parse it in a non rude way.) LakesideMiners (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been desysopped, preparing for being global banned from Wikipedia any moment, and you want to grill me about some post I deleted in 2017 and can no longer see but I do recall at least that it was a) definitely total gibberish from a non speaker with Google translate, and b) illegal in the country where most readers are located, Ethiopia. You say it was not porn, maybe not, I can't see it any more, but the best I can recall now is that the content, as best as I could decipher it, was pushing immorality and would not be tolerated in Ethiopia. It is no longer my responsibility, I will no longer be editing any project, so best wishes and good luck. Codex Sinaiticus (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that you might finally (after how many years?) come to accept that you can not impose your own moral judgments on other contributors and on individual Wikimedia projects, and that trying to impose the backward laws of primitive countries on any Wikipedia is totally unacceptable. Had you shown any recognition of this, even at this late stage, then I would still have been prepared to reconsider my position and perhaps recommend keeping you on as a contributing editor. But it is clearly not to be, and it looks like you will have to find alternative outlets for your bigotry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"backward laws of primitive countries"... My word, you have an interesting view of international relations and law... I have said before and will say again, slavery and colonialism ended long ago, and the Nazi view of "primitive countries" was soundly defeated by my ancestors. Yes, I know you want to forbid anyone from reminding us of the Nazis having existed. But I'm not your slave either. I was hoping you would finally realize your activist agenda is doomed, because you cannot control other people in your own country any more, let alone other countries. But don't lecture me as though you have any credibility with me. You'd be fooling yourself as you have no credibility with me whatsoever. You may ban me from Wikipedia, but I leave you with the thought in the Book of Samuel that Almighty God is the only One Who measures all things, as you may learn some day, so my conscience does not rebuke me, and perhaps you'd have a happier life if you stopped trying to play other people's conscience for them Codex Sinaiticus (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What, I "want to forbid anyone from reminding us of the Nazis having existed"? And you think that accusation will help your cause? The sooner we get rid of you the better. And "the Book of Samuel"? Wikipedia, as a multicultural and global project, is absolutely not bound by individual religious beliefs and your days of pushing yours on us are clearly coming to an end. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you haven't banned me yet and I'm still here, so until then I can continue to speak truth to power, or rather speak truth to your bigotry as I am free to do so . I mention Samuel to you as a helpful source of inspiration and advice, certainly not binding Wikipedia to follow any religious books. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve also spoken with a steward on IRC and the deleted content was definitively not pornography. I don’t know if we’ve spoken to the same one LakesideMiners but it’d probably be best if a passing one could just confirm it for the record. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the international image of San Francisco nor its alleged open defecation issues have any relevance to the conversation. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure some of you may see San Francisco as the pinnacle of human civilization and all, and everywhere else as primitive. But you should know some of those other places you call primitive are beginning to become apprised of people's toilet habits there. Codex Sinaiticus (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring of course to San Francisco's global status as an international by-word for the place where people defecate on the streets. It must be so charming! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certain parts of San Francisco are less than adequate from what I have been hearing, but I'm pretty sure Ethiopia's open defecation rate is higher than the United States'. In fact, according to a 2015 study, 27% of Ethiopians still practice open defacation compared to the United States' 0%. (Sources: 1, 2) So maybe instead of chatting shit about people simply being who they are... you know what, I've said enough. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen such a thing in Ethiopia, but propaganda is what it is. But it occurred to me that officials in Ethiopia might have found the views of Wikimedia amusing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is people not having a (proper) toilet in some parts of the world even related to the topic of this discussion? Saederup92 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I presume others have [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. However as Saederup92 said, it's unclear what benefit this discussion is to anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just telling you I never saw that anywhere I have been there, there were latrines but no one on the street and sidewalk. In that and most respects, I think Ethiopia is about as different from San Francisco as you can get, is the point I want to make. (although I have never seen SF or been anywhere near there, everyone knows what it is even a million miles away ) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, I have been to San Francisco and I've never seen people defecating in the streets. In fact, I've found it a friendly city, well developed, and socially advanced in terms of the rejection of bigotry. So maybe people like you, Til Eulenspiegel, really don't know what it's like from your million miles away (and from your medieval morality mindset). I've also been to many places around the world very different to SF and I could almost write a book about my toilet-related experiences, but none of that is in any way relevant to this case here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We hear there is a lot of it on the streets of SF and we also hear it is the least tolerant place except to their own kind. I could write a book on all the reputation SF has that I have heard! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear a Clothespin on your nose! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't related to the discussion of your global ban. If you want to attack American cities in this discussion, so be it. It just reinforces my support for your ban. Vermont (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How long does it take you to find the gong? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Vermont (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still here until you collectively gong me, I have little hope of survival, so how much longer is this taking? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can still be locked before the community ban is officially in place. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:A0 19:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean blocked? That is surely hardly any different from banning me, so I do not care. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be classified as shitposting Saederup92 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Til Eulenspiegel: gibberish may seem to be fair reason to delete, but again; you are changing it with Ethiopian law. You have still not learned that WMF projects are not censored and literally zero fucks are given about the Ethiopian law because the servers are not located there. The language wikiproject is not owned by the government or ever the people who can speak the language. Each project has its autonomy, but it can not contradict with the guidelines of WMF. And it is evident that you have no good intentions to contribute, because all you are doing is name calling to cover up your prejudice.
acagastya 00:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, that is exactly what I have learned, and after hearing how Ethiopia is considered a primitive country with backward laws, I am so done with this and with Wikimedia. You may block or ban me as you see fit, but I will end here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying Ethiopia is a primitive country. We don't enforce laws of countries, except America (as that's where the WMF is), on Wikimedia projects. This is not specifically targeted at Ethiopia; it is global. Vermont (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did, when I wrote "trying to impose the backward laws of primitive countries on any Wikipedia is totally unacceptable". And I stand by it - countries that criminalize homosexuality are backward and primitive, at least in that aspect. (But yes, the point is that no country's laws other than Federal US law and State law of California are applicable to California-based Wikimedia projects, regardless of the state of development of the country). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. I'm all for treating cultures with respect but it's important to note that cultures aren't monolithic and TE/CS shouldn't be taken to represent the views of all Ethiopians. That said, if a country does criminalise homosexuality, as appears to be the case, then that given aspect is indeed morally backward. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's what's being obviously agreed upon in this discussion. In addition I also think it's fair to say that anyone's personal opinions shouldn't affect the content in the articles more than factual knowledge does. Saederup92 (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have been able to recall more about what I deleted in May 2017. Over May 8 and 9, 2017, the same IP based in Chile inserted google translated gibberish into around 200 wikipedias of languages spoken mostly in so-called "3rd world countries. To the extent that the gibberish could be deciphered, it was evidently advocating rather extreme, one-sided, and recently coined points of view regarding the nature of human marriage and family, that are clearly out of touch with the values and culture of the languages this was added to. Not only did I delete this from amwiki, but admins in all of the other language wikis deleted every last one. Stewards User:Holder and User:Nikki had removed the last remaining instances of the cross-wiki pov pushing spam, for smaller unattended wikis, by Jun 7, 2017, as may be seen at the wikidata item history for homosexuality. This incident reinforced my perception that leeway was given to the fluent speakers of the individual languages of other different cultures, to decide if such material is appropriate, as any sociologist will tell you cultures on earth are vastly different and cannot all be the same. I was not under the impression that when User:Jimbo Wales created the project years ago that it was ultimately intended as a propaganda tool to undermine and subvert foreign cultures and governments in their own languages, by presenting the one-sided viewpoints on human nature now favored in San Francisco and the Halls of the EU. But sadly the above comments from the wolf pack vilifying me for my actions to protect the Amharic Wikipedia, seem to have that understanding, and everyone beyond this kangaroo court deserves to be aware of these stunts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Til Eulenspiegel:

  • Neither invoking colonial legacy or dominance of majority language or third world crap is going to justify your homophobic actions/nature/behaviors.
  • That too you tried to go beyond your limits by blocking someone who was not even near to edit "your wiki" and which is no longer YOUR now and I am happy for that.
  • Accept that you have showed homophobic behavior. Going back to Ethiopian law is not helping either as if we take only my case I haven't even edited on your so called Ethiopian wikis. I am not a criminal so how can you prosecute me before I commit a crime?
  • Plus, with numbers amharic is not the only language of Ethiopia, and you are not the only human being left from Ethiopia to protect it's culture, values and laws. So stop taking ownership of everything and try to learn that there could be people from different views and ways of living their lives than you. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @QueerEcofeminist:. Just telling you that the ping in the above message was not done correctly. You want to remove the “<nowiki>” tags and the underscore. LakesideMiners (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that languages do not have values and culture, it is cultures that have languages and values - and that's a very different thing. Til Eulenspiegel is still refusing to accept that we have language-based Wikipedias, not nation-based Wikipedias. This chronic refusal to accept how things work is at the core of all his disputes across multiple projects. (Deleting those pages might have been correct, and probably was, but not because they were in violation of Ethiopian law.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Ya, I wasn’t focusing on the content of them, but that fact that they were deleted with that reason and the fact that he kept changing his answer. I think I should of made that more clear when I wrote that comment. Also, I was scrolling through his talk page because I forgot where the link to this RfC was. And I found this. Looking at the logs. The page was created with the translation tool(not google translate tho), and if it was complete gibberish, then fine, deleted it, but this is been going on for a long while. And he just has not learned, this was after the wikidata incident as well, this is just making me even more glad of my support vote. LakesideMiners (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a tip on the off chance this proposal doesn't pass: it's a really crap idea when defending yourself to describe the central discussion forum of all WMF wikis as a kangaroo court and those who participate on said forum as a wolf pack. It's an even worse idea to ping (and block...) stewards just to criticise them. SITH (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice[edit]

I have started a discussion about the above non-discrimination policy at

Thank you. —Neotarf (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]