Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185

User:Davidbena has had previously topic bans from ArbPIA (in 2018[1] and again in 2019[2]; they were blocked for violations and associated behaviour in 2021[3], and the topic ban expanded in 2022[4]) and a proposed topic ban from Christianity in 2013 got only support, but was (as too often happens) archived without closure[5]. They seem to be unable to edit about Israel and/or religion for a long time without running into trouble.

In December 2024, they created the article Beautiful captive woman[6], about the Biblical concept of a Jewish soldier "engaging in conjugal affairs" with a captured women, "a Jewish soldier might encounter a captive woman and wish to sleep with her". I tried to make the article more factual and neutral, but time and again Davidbena tried to weaken the text by using euphemisms, e.g. here. I thought this had finally stopped, but now they started using "have connexion" as an euphemish for rape, as in "A Jewish man of priestly descent (Cohen) is permitted to have connexion with a beautiful captive woman in the hour of passion" and "A man that had connexion with a beautiful captive woman". They reinserted the phrase twice[7][8], and I'm completely fed up with this whitewashing of religiously tolerated rape by hiding behind euphemisms and outdated sources (the original article even had a section on "The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law and whether violators should be punished for any breach thereof when it comes to conquest by war, or can it be said that these laws override international law, since they themselves are a form of legal jurisprudence?", which was sourced to a 1917 text...).

I don't know if it's time for a topic ban from everything Israel-related and everything religion-related, or if simply some firm guidance about what is unacceptable is sufficient, but some intervention to end at least this cycle of minimizing the obvious brutality of this topic is wanted. Fram (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I was ready to extend some benefit of the doubt here, despite the history, but was surprised to see that Davidbena's edit summaries explicitly state their intention to euphemize rape here. That's not okay. Davidbena: "have connexion with" is not a synonym for rape--neither is "sexual intercourse" for that matter--and employing either in place of rape should absolutely not be done, regardless of how "overused" you consider the word "rape" to be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Initially, I started out by seeking a euphemism, until I learned that this is not appropriate. I soon dropped that after reading MOS:EUPHEMISM. Now the dispute is different. It is the use of a synonym for "sexual intercourse," and that, mind you, is precisely what I intended to say by the edit. No more; no less. This is a friendly dispute and I have sought a Third Opinion here. I will agree to any consensus.Davidbena (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Except that you didn't replace "sexual intercourse" with "connexion" in that edit, you replaced "rape" with "have connexion with", repeatedly, as Fram's diffs show. Surely you see the problem here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. I am the person who wrote the initial paragraph, and it was worded "connexion" (instead of "rape"), in accordance with wiki-link connexion. It was Fram who erased my edit and placed there "rape." That was NOT my train of thought in the edit, at all, since I only wanted to stress "sexual intercourse."Davidbena (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not what you said. Your words on the talk page were:sometimes, it is better to use a synonym for a word that is often-times repeated in an article or text, such as the word "rape." The word "connexion" can be used effectually as an alternative for this word, so as to avoid redundancy and "over-use" of the word "rape." So, do you or do you not consider "connexion" as a synonym for "rape"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but this does not negate my original intention, to use a synonym for "sexual intercource." The above statement was made by me only after Fram insisted on using the word "rape" again and again in the article, and to show her that there are ways of saying the same thing, without infringing upon the use of euphemisms. To prove my point, when Fram changed the second paragraph from "connexion" to "sexually assault" I left her edit stand, since it reflected my original thought.Davidbena (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The original text in question washave connexion with a beautiful captive woman in the hour of passion, which as Fram correctly points out is a euphemism here for "rape". That fact that you are replacing "rape" with "have connexion with" to "show [Fram] that there are ways of saying the same thing" here, tells me the answer to my question is effectively: no, you do not see a difference between "rape" and "have connexion with" here. In a vacuum this could be a one-off content issue not suitable for ANI, but in the context of your previous behavior and sanctions, it is a problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

To understand what I or anyone does here, we must have a clear understanding of the sources. The source cited by me was Maimonides and he is simply talking about "sexual intercourse." The rest of what I wrote was unnecessary, that is, "in the hour of passion." At any rate, my intent was to use a synonym for "sexual intercourse."Davidbena (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Either we provide a quote attributing your text to a 13th c. source, or we write it in 21st century words, not in the way Maimonides would have done. But we don't write a text as if Wikipedia is describing, summarizing, the situation, but then using euphemisms because that what the source does (never mind that no one uses "having connexion" nowadays in any case). We wouldn't write in Wikipedia voice about "the extermination of inferior humans" either to describe the Holocaust, or the "relocation of primitives and heathens" to describe all kinds of colonialism and slavery, even though it is easy enough to find older sources which write about these things in such words or synonyms of them. Fram (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the source cited by me is Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4), where he uses the Hebrew wordביאה‎, meaning "coitus; sexual intercourse," and says that a man of priestly descent can only do this thing once with a 'beautiful captive woman,' and which Hebrew word used by him happens to be the exact same word used to describe a man that has marital affairs with his own wife, such as in a consensual relationship. There was no reason to jump at me, thinking that I was looking specifically for a euphemism for "rape." The word "connexion" is another word used by the translators of works compiled by Israel's Sages when they want to describe in our day the words "coitus" and "sexual intercourse." There is nothing to be shocked about this choice of wording. We are simply citing Maimonides who specifically uses the Hebrew word "bi'ah" (=ביאה‎). For those who may be skeptical or who may not believe me, let him check our Hebrew sources. Moreover, look here at the Morfix Hebrew-English lexicon for a description of this word. Maimonides, himself, when using the Hebrew language, makes use of a Hebrew euphemism; however, its implied meaning in English is NOT written here as a euphemism. The lexicon brings down its English equivalent in plain English. If anyone needs me to put him in contact with a Hebrew-speaking Wikipedean, I can do that for him.Davidbena (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Except that you weren't citing Maimonides, you were using Maimonides as a source for a statement in Wikivoice. And I would like to see sources for "The word "connexion" is another word used by the translators of works compiled by Israel's Sages when they want to describe in our day the words "coitus" and "sexual intercourse.", unless your definition of "in our days" stretches back to 1940 or so.

"There was no reason to jump at me, thinking that I was looking specifically for a euphemism for "rape."" Except that you had a history of exactly that behaviour at that article, describing this (a man raping a woman he "captured" during war) as " to engage in conjugal affairs with her", "wish to sleep with her", "forcibly have marital relations", "vent his passion during the time of war", "the first act of passion", "had intercourse with a captive woman". These are all euphemisms for rape you had used in the text previously and which I had to remove. Fram (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Anyone who can read Maimonides will see that I was citing him, almost verbatim. The word "connexion" is still used to denote coitus. Besides, I added a wiki-link for readers who might be unfamiliar with the word's meaning. As for all earlier edits which you continue to cite, I have already learned from those earlier mistakes and have not repeated them here.18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. An edit that does nothing other than changing the word "rape" to "violate the chastity of" is ... not a good look. Looking at "what links here", there's similar stuff elsewhere ("make contact with", for example). Makes me wonder if there might be some sets of keywords/phrases to search for that are common euphemisms used in or about very old texts (various religious works, but also nonreligious historical texts). But even if we say someone could be forgiven for repeating sanitized/euphemized language in sources, it's harder to justify repeatedly reinstating such language. :/ I think we really need a clear acknowledgement that this was a big mistake and a commitment to try to remember where else those problems may have unintentionally been introduced. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What you are referring to above are edits made by me before learning that we should not make use of euphemisms. The discussion here is about something totally different. I simply sought another word for "sexual intercourse" and took up the word "connexion" since it is used to describe the same in our rabbinic books.Davidbena (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It is really, really not, and at this point I think you've dug a hole so deep only a WP:CBAN will solve the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Truthfully, I'm at a loss here. Why is it inconceivable to think that in an article that speaks about the rape of a 'Beautiful captive woman' the rabbis who detail the particulars about this case will use the word "coitus"? They do! And I simply quoted from Maimonides who used the word "coitus" ("connexion"). The two words happen to be synonyms, just as shown by entry no. 11 in this wiki-link here. Tell me, please, where am I mistaken? When I first started this article, I did not know a thing about the abstension from use of euphemisms, but when I learned about it, I stopped using them. The complaint made by Fram against me was because she thought that I was still employing euphemisms in place of rape. No, I was not, as strange as that might sound. This here is a near direct quote from Maimonides, and differs from my earlier mistakes. I would NEVER wittingly go against a rule made by Wikipedia. I have God as my witness. Davidbena (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I simply quoted - No, you didn't. It's easy to tell when something is quoted because there are quotation marks and attribution in the text. That's not what you did -- you put it in the voice of Wikipedia. If the source you're using euphemizes, replacing it with a synonym is still euphemizing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, User:Davidbena, "entry no. 11 in this wiki-link" (!!) isn't what ordinary readers associate with "connection". I know you wittingly wouldn't break any wiki-rules, but when so many editors tell you that you are: you better start listing. As others have said before: when you are in a hole: stop digging. Huldra (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Huldra:, I often read an English translation of the Mishnah published by Herbert Danby, and in it he often uses the word "connexion" for coitus, or sexual intercourse. If the majority of our readers do not understand this word, why am I to blame? I even went overboard to add the wiki-link for those who perhaps do not understand the other meanings of that word. Besides, the word to me sounds more professional.Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Davidbena, Herbert Danby died 72 years ago before radical social change in how rape and sexuality are discussed, and should should not be used as an example of contemporary English language usage. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I understand you.Davidbena (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

So, it's my mistake if I didn't put it in "quotation marks." Would you like me to put the full quote within the article? You'll quickly see that it's nearly the same. Maimonides uses "connexion" = ביאה (sexual-intercourse), but does not use the word "rape" (which in Hebrew is אונס).Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Davidbena:, perhaps 1 of 1000 readers of wikipedia, knows what the Mishnah even is! Yes, we are ignorant of it, as most of us are ignorant about Hindu or Buddhist religion, too. And yes! I blame you for assuming that the average wiki-reader has the knowledge of a Yeshiva-student, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Huldra. You have convinced me that I expected too much of our readership. If the community will give me the leeway, I will not push the use of any word, and leave the sense as plain and simple as possible. No more "appearances" of euphemisms to describe something that is repugnant.Davidbena (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I have to say, while this article has problems, it is not fair to but the blame for the whitewashing and euphemizing of rape on Davidbena, because it is not original to him—the original rabbinic texts refer to "coitus", etc., and only later interpretive texts refer (without much emphasis or consistency, from what I see) to rape. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I did some research and found that in 1994's Sexual violence and Deuteronomic law, Carolyn Pressler argues that the term 'rape' is not applicable to biblical legislation, as the matter of female consent is irrelevant. This is cited by a 2011 paper by David Resnick about this article's topic, entitled A case study in Jewish moral education: (non‐)rape of the beautiful captive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

My point being not that there was nothing problematic about David's editing, but that the avoidance of the term "rape", which Cullen has pointed out was not even total, is not some original hangup of David's but a (flawed) reflection of varied terminology in sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how a grown person needs to be told in the first place not to use such watered-down euphemisms for "rape". Sorry, but "I didn't know" is just really, really weak. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Even stretching AGF to the limit the best explanation I can come up with here is that Davidbena is editing with blinkers on, and without them developing some perspective I agree that they should be removed from the subject. I'm less certain as to the limits of the TBAN, but a TBAN from Israel, and a TBAN from Religion, might be appropriate to begin with. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Drmies: Although, in truth, I had no intention to use it as "a watered-down euphemism," but wanted to bring down Maimonides own words who did not use the word "rape," but rather "connexion" (in the sense of "coitus"). Is this so hard to understand? My use of that word here is practically a direct quote from Maimonides. It has nothing to do with me selecting a euphemism.Davidbena (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It may not have been your intention but that is still what you did. Is that so hard to understand? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry for creating that impression. Can you forgive me for this error?Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

His intentions obviously matter, and the fact that he reproduced language from the halakhic literature, rather than just deciding he’d like to soften the edges of rape today, is obviously relevant. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Here is the full quotation taken from Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hil. Melakhim 8:4)

הכהן מותר ביפת תואר בביאה ראשונה, שלא דיברה תורה אלא כנגד היצר; אבל אינו יכול לישא אותה אחר כן, לפי שהיא גיורת‎

"A beautiful captive woman is permitted unto a priest [of Aaron's lineage], during the initial connexion (i.e. coitus), since the Torah has not spoken except with respect to it being a concession to [man's evil] inclination. However, he cannot marry her afterwards, since she is a female proselyte."Davidbena (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Davidbena came to my talk page asking for feedback on this matter and this is what I told him: I am sorry that you are going through the wringer at ANI. I will not repeat what others have said there although I agree with much of it, but rather, I want to point out what I see as a major problem with Beautiful captive woman, an article about Deuteronomy 21:10–14 in the Hebrew Bible. This aspect has not been commented on at ANI. In its current form, the article violates our core content policy, the Neutral point of view, which says articles must representfairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Emphasis added. The article is based pretty much entirely on Orthodox Jewish perspectives although there are 1000 times more Christians in the world than Orthodox Jews and Deuteronomy is a canonical biblical work for them as well as for the Jews. It lacks analysis by Conservative and Reform Jewish scholars. It lacks perspective by women scholars of the Hebrew Bible, which is particularly striking because of the subject matter. Susannah Heschel, Blu Greenberg, Anita Diamant and Tamar Frankiel came immediately to mind, since my wife and I own books by them. Susanne Scholtz wrote a book called Sacred Witness. Rape in the Hebrew Bible. Other women Bible scholars include Tamar Ross, Rachel Adler, Judith Hauptman, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Adele Berlin and many others. An acceptable article would certainly include commentary by at least some of them. Your narrow focus on the type of sources favored by Yeshiva bochurs has led you into a bind, it seems to me. I encourage you to ponder this issue carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If the community will be patient with me, I'll slowly add those other views, to give this article a more broad scope.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems clearly to me a case of someone just not knowing (yet) the norms of Wikipedia, but clearly willing to learn and build an encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh. This is not a new editor. Davidbena, be sure to use language used in the most reliable sources, even if it is not originalist in textual interpretation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I can agree to that.Davidbena (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Whose translation is that? NebY (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@NebY: that was my own translation of the Hebrew written by Maimonides. Maimonides in Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4) used the word "bi'ah" (Hebrew: ביאה) for "sexual intercourse." He wasn't even trying to say the word "rape." I have come under heat for citing Maimonides. If anyone needs confirmation about what I say, he can contact User:Ynhockey, who is knowledgeable in Hebrew.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That's the trouble - you presented your own translation as evidence that "connexion" was the appropriate way to translate Maimonides. You have not presented anyone else's translation or cited any Hebrew-English dictionary. If you had not translated Maimonides yourself with such a rare, fey, word but used a term closer to and even more literally translating his Rabbinic Hebrew, not acknowledging it as rape would have been clearly his responsibility, yet in discussion here you doubled down on your translation and made yourself a participant in that evasion and obfuscation.

Intentionally or not, but certainly regrettably, this has somewhat diverted us from your WP:UNDUE assertions in Wikivoice, such as"the conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law",[9] at a time when military sexual violence is an ARBPIA issue (e.g. Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war and Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel). In that light, your obfuscatory translation is of a piece with the denial that sexual violence is criminal. NebY (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I note that there have already been suggestions that Davidbena's repeated inability to get the point here, along with multiple attempts to justify the use of a euphemism because 'Maimonides used it' (an absurd suggestion, if only considering that Maimonides clearly didn't write in English of any kind, never mind that of the 21st century CE, though there are clearly multiple further reasons to reject such fallacious logic) would justify either a topic ban, or a community ban. Not having commented before, I was sitting this out before chipping in, but I'd now have to suggest that Davidbena's latest comment - "the word to me sounds more professional"[10] - is so beyond the pale and/or or irredeemably clueless that only a community ban would be appropriate. I am having grave doubts that any topic ban could conceivably be wide enough in scope to prevent similar stubborn resistance to common sense, decency, and honest writing, combined with relentless hole-digging, from doing damage elsewhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

So, my friend, I assure you that I am not unassailable. I do make mistakes. I also admit to my mistakes. But where, for God's sake, have we heard that in an article such as this we cannot interchange the verbs rape, coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion when describing the laws relating to this woman? I honestly do not understand. If you want me to apologize for using the word "connexion" I'll apologize and won't use it again.Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You think 'rape' and 'sexual intercourse' are interchangeable? Holy fuck. --Onorem (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose; there's no reason to believe he will be persistently disruptive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

And I oppose any TBAN as well, for the same reason. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary you do realize he already has been persistently disruptive, which is why he has been blocked and topic banned before? I'm not disagreeing with your oppose as that's your right, but there's a disconnect with the reason. Star Mississippi 15:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

if only considering that Maimonides clearly didn't write in English of any kind
This is just silly. The Hebrew does not refer to rape either, but rather refers to the act with a euphemism for sex (as is basically ubiquitous in halakhic literature). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Zanahary. — E_F⁵ 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Your inability to understand (further illustrated above) is clearly at the root of the problem. Apologies are empty words without an understanding of what one is apologising for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how this happened, but for anyone confused: my comment somehow intercepted Andy's reply to David's above comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I was about to say.. all I said was four words. — E_F⁵ 17:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hah, it's a traveling admonishment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Sigh, so we are here again. I actually oppose topic-ban IF (and only if) Davidbena promise not to oppose other editors ever again, if they raise an objection on the talk-page. Last chance. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You have my promise.Davidbena (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem that you have not yet acknowledged, Davidbena, is that coitus and sexual intercourse are not synonyms for rape, and connexion is just a British English alternate spelling of connection, and its use is obfuscating in this context. That being said, I oppose a community ban at this time. I think that Davidbena offers a perspective and a specific expertise that is useful to the encyclopedia. I would instead support an adminishment and an editing restriction that would require Davidbena to submit his draft articles for review by other editors with a modicum of knowledge about Judaism from a non-Orthodox perspective, and I hereby volunteer to be one of those reviewers. He should first be required to broaden the perspectives in the problematic article under discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yes, I am aware of the British and American spelling differences. And, yes, the word "rape" is a harsher word than "having sexual intercourse." I used the latter example only because Maimonides used it.Davidbena (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but just while I was coming around perhaps ready to accept what Cullen328 proposed, you go and say that. No, "rape" is not a "harsher word"; it is a different act. I really feel we're approaching CIR here; sorry Huldra. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to halakhic literature, "rape" is indeed a harsher word for "having sexual intercourse" in the frequent cases wherein the latter refers to the act of rape—as in this Maimonides text. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Drmies: I too have no problem using "rape," just as I used it when I first wrote the article. This was only in response to what Cullen said about the difference between "rape" and "sexual intercourse." We all know and respect the difference. And, yes, it is a different act.Davidbena (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Drmies: To the best of my knowledge, I NEVER said that rape is not a harsher word than sexual intercourse (unless it were an inadvertent "typo"). Of course "rape" is harsher than saying "sexual intercourse" and it is also a different act, as it involves violence. I would never say nor suggest that rape is not worse than ordinary cohabitation between a man and his wife. I guess what some editors here fail to realize is that, in Judaism, the uglier the word, the more we are proned and inclined not to say the word, but to use alternative language. Here, however, on Wikipedia it is advised to use the regular language, no matter how hard it might sound.Davidbena (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

I guess what some editors here fail to realize is that, in Judaism, the uglier the word, the more we are proned and inclined not to say the word, but to use alternative language.

This is a personal decision of yours, it isn't true that Jewish people avoid direct speech. In various articles and here at ANI you keep representing your views and decisions as part of a collective that isn't close to monolithic. This is a competence issue. 107.115.5.79 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I support "the Cullen328"-solution. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Huldra, to be clear, you are saying that Davidbena can never argue on Talk pages again? Is that a proposed term of a suspended community ban, or a personal condition for your oppose vote? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

She is saying that when my view is challenged, I should learn to acquiesce to a different point of view, as there are, indeed, other view points.Davidbena (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Zanahary: Davidbena and I go waaay back; we first met at Bayt Nattif more than 10 years ago. And we have met on nearly countless articles afterwards. It is my experience that (as many here have commented) Davidbena tends to "dig himself down", when editors disagree with him, just look at where this latest started: Talk:Beautiful captive woman: where two very experienced editors, Fram and Writ Keeper, basically tells him that he is wrong, and Davidbena basically commits "wikisuicide" by arguing against them. But; I also know that Davidbena does what he say; when he has promised to look into these other sources that Cullen mentions: I believe him. At Bayt Nattif I was angry with him for leaving out history between year 12 and 1948 (= Palestinian history), and mentioned other sources, like the 1596 tax records. He said he would look into these sources -and he did!(link) Davidbena is one of the -far too few- IP-editors who look up sources in books, he can also be excruciatingly stubborn,(I can quite understand Fram basically throwing up his arms, and giving up), Davidbena was under the mentorship of Nableezy for a year, that worked ok (well, that was my impression?) If he could possibly be under a similar mentorship with Cullen? Basically if Cullen says: Step back; Davidbena promise to do so. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course I would agree to be under Cullen's mentorship. I would seek his approval before posting any article, if he'd agree to this.Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, I would be willing, and the AFC-only-for-certain-topics proposal also seems smart to me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I oppose a community ban as too drastic, but if Davidbena truly thinks "coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion" are interchangeable with "rape", he should not edit anything to do with sex. I do support Cullen's suggestions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I fully understand the difference between these terms, and "rape" is non-consensual, but forced upon a person against her will, and entails violence. Yes, it is indeed different from "coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion." The only quipe that I initially had was with the frequent use of the word "rape" which sounded redundant. Moreover, in spite of MOS:EUPHEMISM, we do see articles all throughout Wikipedia (e.g History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1800–1899, Murder of Elizabeth Fales, Norfolk County Courthouse (1795), etc.) where they have used expressions like "violated her chastity" for "rape" and for "promiscuity" and which begs the question if the general proscription referred only to certain euphemisms, such as not using the words "he passed away" for "he died", as explained in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. At any rate, when the euphemisms that I wrote were deleted in this article, I soon stopped writing them altogether. I was deferred to MOS:EUPHEMISM. Perhaps it would be good if someone could write for us the parameters of its usage and when not to use it at all. Is it a solid rule to write at all times "kill" instead of "euthenize"? Anyway, I have stopped using them here. As for the word "connexion" used by me, this was actually a quote used by Maimonides, and was not intended by me to be a euphemism for rape, even though, in reality, it is perceived as such. So, the question should be are we permitted to use a "lighter word" when the word is used by a scholar when describing rape? This will be up to Wikipedeans to answer, who make the rules for us all to follow.Davidbena (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Connexion really isn't used in standard English to mean sex. Secretlondon (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Maimonides did not write "connexion" or in English at all. He used a Hebrew word which is not only translated as "connexion". NebY (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@NebY: Actually, Maimonides used the Hebrew wordביאה‎ which is translated into English as either "Sexual intercourse" or "coitus" or "connexion".Davidbena (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Davidbena, those are not recently-promoted featured articles. Please do not cite random articles as evidence of an acceptable or good practice as there are millions of pages on Wikipedia which are in many respects not great and not exemplary. —Alalch E. 19:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The uses of "violated her chastity" in History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1800–1899, Murder of Elizabeth Fales, and Norfolk County Courthouse (1795) are in verbatim quotes from an 19th century text. Of course that doesn't violate MOS:EUPHEMISM. --bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea: My use of "connexion" is also a paraphrase of Maimonides' words in his Code of Jewish law. Maimonides in Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4) used the word "bi'ah" (Hebrew: ביאה) for "sexual intercourse." He wasn't even trying to say the word "rape." I have come under heat for citing Maimonides. If anyone needs confirmation about what I say, he can contact User:Ynhockey, who is knowledgeable in Hebrew.Davidbena (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

No, these are different things. The three articles quoting the 19th century court case quote the source verbatim with quotation marks and a clear attribution of the quoted text (and the source reports the exact words of the witness in the case). The use of that expression in the Wikipedia articles is not a paraphrase, nor is it a translation in which a Wikipedia editor decided to use one phrase rather than another one. -bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You must be talking about something else. I never mentioned anything about a "19th century court case" nor about any "witness" in my reply to you.Davidbena (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I am still talking about the three Wikipedia articles you used as examples of articles where the phrase "violated her chastity" were used. Surely you must have readthe context of the phrase in those articles, if not before you mentioned them here, at least after people explained how none of the articles violates MOS:EUPHEMISM? Do you see how your use of "connexion" is not comparable to the use of "violated her chastity" in those articles? --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: By my saying, "it sounds more professional," I really mean by that to say it sounds more encyclopedic.Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Only if 'encyclopaedia' is a euphemism for 'exercise in whitewashing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Frivolity laid aside, some words are nicer than others from a literary standpoint.Davidbena (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There was no frivolity whatsoever intended in my comment. And there is nothing 'nice' whatsoever in trying to disguise rape. Never. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, when I wrote this article, I also used the word "rape."Davidbena (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not literature. It is an encyclopedia - as you note - and that means it should use clear, unambiguous language. Our purpose is to provide information.

Secondly, we don't need to make rape sound nice. Quite the opposite, in my opinion. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Birdsinthewindow: Okay, I can agree to not making rape sound nice. It is, after all, a disgusting and horrid act. I linked certain words to rape, when I wrote the article, as I recognized it for what it was. With that said, I have an honest question. When a rabbi of Maimonides' caliber discusses the issue of the 'Beautiful captive woman' and wishes to say something related to "sexual intercourse," in his Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4), he uses a Hebrew euphemism for "sexual intercourse", rather than one for "rape". Now if I or someone else came along and cited from Maimonides (in the above passage) and did not use Maimonides' Hebrew euphemism, but rather the full meaning of the word implied by him, namely, "sexual intercourse," or if a synonym was used for "sexual intercourse" such as "connexion," is this wrong? After all, the point was to cite from Maimonides.Davidbena (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

One issue, though by no means the largest, is that using "connexion" to mean "sexual intercourse" is exceedingly rare. Choosing such a rare word makes it seem that the intention is to obfuscate.

None of The Cambridge Dictionary, The Britannica Dictionary, nor The Merriam-Webster Dictionary even give "sexual intercourse" as a possible meaning. The Collins Dictionary does list it, but marks it as "rare". The comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary also lists it, with three quotations dating between 1791 and 1810, but one shouldn't need to consult the OED to understand a Wikipedia article. CodeTalker (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I can agree to be put under a ban not to edit anything that has to do with sex. I agree with such a ban, but that would prevent me from editing this article.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you ever run into trouble editing topics related to sex before? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

No, never.Davidbena (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose ban I don't see the need currently for such a preventive measure when @Davidbena seems genuinely eager to abide by our community standards. I agree with @Cullen328's suggestion of a restriction requiring review and mentorship. Support given subsequent discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC) EDITED 19:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban, but support some kind of alternative sanction such as "topic ban from religious GENSEX issues". To be entirely honest Davidbena's replies to comments here don't come across to me as genuine, they come across as "I don't believe I did anything wrong but I'm saying what I think people want to hear to dodge sanctions for this". That said I don't think they're disruptive enough to be cbanned yet, but a tban of some sort would seem to be necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • After having gone through this again ,and seeing the further responses, my mind has been changed - Support community ban. I was willing to offer WP:ROPE but it's already been thoroughly used here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. No more chances. No mentorship. No more using euphemisms for sex as synonyms for rape. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note Editors supporting a community ban should be aware that Davidbena's earliest version of the article dated 18 December 2024 included the phraseforcibly have marital relations which linked to rape, andengage in conjugal affairs with her, with or without her consent and described the behavior asuniversally thought-of as being repugnant. That first version also notedwomen are protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces. Yes, there have been significant problems with the article but the notion that Davidbena's descriptions have been entirely euphemistic from the beginning is not quite correct. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think "euphemistic" is a reasonable description of the phrase "forcibly have marital relations." It's not as bad as the other euphemisms Davidbena has used, but it still uses ambiguous language ("marital relations"). Birdsinthewindow (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw that. I'd recommend people reading in particular the subsection entitled 'International law vs. religious law', bearing in mind Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR etc, etc. I suspect that most reading said section will agree with me that attempting to cite Quincy Wright for morally dubious editorialising regarding whether "laws rendered by non-Jewish courts of law become binding upon the people of Israel who are governed by different laws?" is utterly inappropriate, if only because Wright appears to have said nothing whatsoever on the subject of rape of prisoners of war, and clearly can't have been discussing 'the people of Israel' when he wrote the piece cited, in 1917. People might also wish to take into consideration whether they think that 'Negative aspects' is an appropriate subsection title, given the topic. Are readers supposed to think that everything else in the article is 'positive'? I sincerely hope not. The article seems right from the start to have been mealy-mouthed special pleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The only reason Quincy Wright was cited is because we were looking for a source that showed that, sometimes, there is a conflict of interest between "religious laws" and "secular laws." That was the entire purpose; no more and no less.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, "people of Israel" can mean the ancient Israelites, or the Jews through the millenia, or modern citizens of the State of Israel since 1948, although the latter are usually referred to as "Israelis". Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Certainly such meanings might be intended for the phrase, in some contexts. Given that the article is discussing the actions of a Jewish/Israelite army of conquest however, (quoting the article lede) "at a time when the people of Israel dwell in their own land and when the Sanhedrin is in authority" my point remains. The whole section, beyond the raw statement concerning the Geneva Convention etc, is entirely unsourced. Quincy Wright wrote nothing regarding the subject of the article. He has been 'cited' in an attempt to lead credibility to Davidbena's editorialising, e.g. the pulling out of a hat of a "conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law..." Who says it is to be asked? SnowRise has already addressed this below (e.g. "outright socio-religious polemics"), and I see no point in repeating it - the 'citation' of Wright on this matter was either incredibly wrong-headed, or intentionally deceitful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty far-fetched to me that this article was made as apologia for halakhically sanctioned rape of women as spoils of war. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a case of "we write about what we know." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

We tend to use the sources we know about and are familiar with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it—agreed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You being unaware that a 1917 source could refer to "people of Israel" is an indicator that you don't understand this topic well enough to be proposing CBANs based on source representation in the topic area. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

'Source representation'? that's a fine euphemism in itself. Accuracy, however, requires the use of the term 'source falsification'. Or can you quote me a phrase in the Wright piece cited that says anything whatsoever concerning the issues of legality discussed by Davidbena: issues concerning the actions of an Israelite army of conquest, "when the Sanhedrin is in authority". I may not be a Talmud scholar, or an expert on the History of the Israelites, but I know enough about Wikipedia policy to be able to recognise a bogus citation. Anyway, it really doesn't matter who the phrase "people of Israel" is or was referring to, since Wright wrote nothing on the subject. And come to that, I make no claims to be an expert on international law, either, but I'd have to suggest that citing a source from 1917 in an attempt to throw doubt on the applicability of aspects of the Geneva Convention of 1949 is in general unlikely to convince anyone of anything much. At least, not anything beyond the obvious - that the subsection is a polemic, attempting to give credence to a viewpoint that might possibly have been the norm when Deuteronomy was written, or when Maimonides wrote on the subject, but clearly isn't now. One does not have to be a Talmud scholar to recognise the gross misuse of Wikipedia article space involved here. And nor, for that matter, does one have to be any sort of scholar to recognise attempts to deflect this discussion from the core issues, and to instead nit-pick about incidental phraseology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: It should have been obvious to anyone reading this article that, by saying the laws could only be applied if the Sanhedrin were in their former place, that such laws DO NOT APPLY to us today. That should have been self-evident. As for the source that was formerly cited in the article, that excerpt was duly deleted, as it was clearly not applicable here.Davidbena (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

What is self evident is that your citation of Wright in the article was a complete and utter fabrication. Wright wrote precisely nothing on the subject of the article. THis is simple, demonstrable fact. You cited the source. It is readily available, archived. That you are still nit-picking over irrelevances, while failing entirely to address your flagrant disregard for the integrity of the project (which is what falsification of a source constitutes), only convinces me further that you are unfit to participate in the project at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I, respectfully, disagree, as my sole intention in citing Wright was to show that modern-day international law can, occasionally, clash with individual state laws, and, in our specific case, the theocratic state laws of Israel, when they were once applicable. In the final analysis, we made the decision not to carry the edit, as it was deemed irrelevant.Davidbena (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for at least admitting that you falsified a citation in order to shoehorn in your own personal interpretation of a question that absolutely nobody asked. And having your repulsive editorialising about the legitimacy of something that occurred millennia ago under modern international law removed as the obvious off-topic crap it was by somebody else in no shape or form detracts from the point that you added the crap in the first place, in the pretence that this garbage was sourced to a renowned scholar of international law. If you want to promote such nonsense, I'm sure you can find somewhere else for it, but I see no reason why anyone who thinks that it belongs on Wikipedia should be permitted to continue to edit at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

.Davidbena (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support I didn't want to be here, and intended to not weigh in at all, butFrivolity laid aside, some words are nicer than others from a literary standpoint. shows that not only do they not understand the issue, they have no intention of even trying to for the sake of this conversation. This is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly analysis of 13th century people's analaysis of Jewish texts. Davidbena has shown they can edit productively and I believe I may even have !voted to unblock/lessen ban before, but they are unwilling to and that is the problem. Star Mississippi 02:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Words have meanings. Intercourse is not a more encyclopedic version of rape, or most of us need to get prison ready. 74.254.224.112 (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Can an IP's first edit be a vote on a community ban? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Dynamic IPs exist.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not yet 100% convinced that a community ban is necessary but at the very minimum I would support a cast-iron topic ban from anything to do with gender, religion or the state of Israel. Go and improve articles about insects or geometry or something. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC) After a week of failure to move on and step right back from this entire area I'm not opposed to a community ban as a second choice. Daveosaurus (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Use of euphemisms for rape is bad, but the thing that most convinces me is the argument, based on a 1917 article that doesn't mention religion at all, that perhaps Jews are not required to obey the tenets of modern morality and international law. The claim to speak for all religious Jews is also offensive. It would be perfectly easy to write and source that there exist religious Jews who don't think the Geneva Convention applies to them, but to write "In contrast, religious Jews view the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers as immutable." is beyond the pale. Zero^talk 07:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Zero0000: that old excerpt was duly deleted because it did not apply. Besides, I never insisted that it should remain there. The only reason that it was cited in the first place was because we wanted to show an example of where "religious laws" sometimes come in conflict with "secular laws", and the author indeed spoke about that. To be clear, Wright did not speak about "religion", per se, but rather spoke about the laws of existing governments vs. international law, and we were contrasting his views with a laws of theocratic government, such as that of ancient Israel. As for the statement, "In contrast, religious Jews view the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers as immutable," this was supported by a very reliable source which you seem to overlook. The most important matter, in my view, is that we decided against using such statements. Davidbena (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would support a community ban as my second choice; at a minimum though should be a topic ban from sex, religion, Israel/Jews and their intersections. I agree with The Bushranger that Davidbena's contributions to this discussion come across as a grudging attempt to pacify the community ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I really went back and forth on this one. On the one hand, despite a fair bit of failing repeatedly to get the points being spelled out at length above, David eventually and consistently concedes to each point as soon as at least two community members assert it. So I don't think his response is entirely a case of WP:IDHT. Willingness to concede points and commit to learning and adapting to project guidelines and norms, and community feedback, carries a lot weight with me in such discussions as this. Unfortunately, given David's tenure here, the precise nature of his comments here and the content generated in the article presently in question leave me unable to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of basic WP:competence when it comes to making those adjustments. I would be prepared to look past a checkered past with community sanctions (even if it is quite deep in this instance), if the nature of the content we are talking about here weren't so incredibly problematic. Putting aside the use of euphemism that has attracted so much attention here, a look at the content reveals issues that betray the lack of even a basic understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, among other core policies. To wit, from the "International law vs. religious law" section, that has (quite rightly) been mentioned a few times here:

"The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law and whether violators should be punished for any breach thereof when it comes to conquest by war, or can it be said that these laws override international law, since they themselves are a form of legal jurisprudence? Moreover, can laws rendered by non-Jewish courts of law become binding upon the people of Israel who are governed by different laws?"

There is so much more going on there that is well beyond the question of the euphemistic reference to rape, concerning though that question may be in its own right. This is outright socio-religious polemics, engaging with an original-research-by-way-of-synthesis moral argument, which would be deeply problematic under an array policy considerations under any circumstances, but which becomes entirely intolerable when you add in the context that it is espousing the view, in wikivoice, that the rape of captive women should maybe be countenanced by international law, when practiced by the members of a particular religious tradition. It's worth noting that most members of that tradition would be foremost among the the most horrified at this notion. I don't think I need belabour with another six paragraphs how many basic policy considerations this segment of content violates, just in itself. And though it's far distant from the greatest of the concerns here, even the choice of florid, faux-lecture hall verbiage for that segment suggests a complete failure on the part of this user to have internalized Wikipedia's standard approach to encyclopedic content.

In short, the issues here are too many and too profound, considering this user has had 11 years to have taken on at least the basic understanding of our pillar policies to the extent that they would then see the very glaring issues with their approach here, without it needing to be explained point by point. Adding in the history of sanctions, and the exhaustion of community patience even when hand-holding is attempted, I have to judge this situation as falling on the wrong side of WP:CIR. I appreciate this user wants to learn and contribute non-disruptively. So, if they are CBANned, my advice would be to spend the next year observing project space and learning passively, and then make their first appeal. Right now they are falling too readily to using this project as a vehicle to explore their own original thoughts on controversial issues. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Nailed it, no notes. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support per the nomination and the above discussion. It's fucking absurd that anyone would seek to euphemise rape. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, a longtime editor who is listening and replying in good faith. I don't know enough about this, so a topic ban or two may be at least discussed, but to ban from Wikipedia editing? Way to jump from one level to another. And again, as often occurs, when an editor is ANI'ed it often jumps to "ban!" and a feeding frenzy. Please close this section and "burn the witch" mentality and get back to discussing the original concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  I know you mean well @Randy Kryn but we're talking about a triple topic banned and blocked editor. Listening is one thing if you're new, but not when you know your conduct is problematic. Star Mississippi 01:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Randy, I don't think you do any favours for David (or any user facing a sanction) when you turn up the heat of the discussion by implying that anyone who supports the proposal is doing so from pure mob psychology, rather than their owned principled reading on the policy considerations and the project's interests. I don't think you, coming from the other direction, would appreciate it if someone implied that the primary reason you are opposing a sanction is because you have been hauled before ANI so many times that you are reflexively inclined to dismiss legitimate community concerns. Again, that sort of commentary brings "much more heat than light" as we've grown accustomed to saying as a community. So let's maybe keep the meta-psychological speculation on other user's motives for their !votes out of the process altogether, and focus on more direct debate on the objective merits of the various possible solutions to an unfortunate situation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you, coming from the other direction, would appreciate it if someone implied that the primary reason you are opposing a sanction is because you have been hauled before ANI so many times that you are reflexively inclined to dismiss legitimate community concerns.
  This is ten times more personal and inflammatory than Randy's comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know about ten times, but yes, it very much is personal and inflammatory. It's also completely inscrutable to verification or falsification and based in supposition that has nothing to do with the direct debate concerning the merits of the proposal. Which is why I was very expressly using it as an example of the kind of dubiously speculative and unhelpful commentary that ought to be avoided. If I'm going to make a comparison that attempts to reflect something I know for certain that Randy as an individual is almost certain not to endorse, I have access to a narrow range of examples I can be certain about. But as I was at extreme panges to emphasize in that comment, no such person speculation about the motives of other contributors to this discussion (whether as individuals or a collection of editors supposedly falling prey to "witch-hunting" mentality) are especially constructive or advisable here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Snow Rise, please strike much of your above. I think the number is two (not ten, and both times they were pretty ridiculous charges. Did you bring one of those?) People sometimes use this forum to pile-on when someone is "brought" here for something totally unrelated and usually much more trivial than an indef, and then someone gets the wise idea that "hey, since they're here let's indef them!" and others often take that as an opening to do damage to someone far exceeding the initial concern. Strike your inaccurately-perceived misinformation and strangely specific intent-analysis please, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry Randy, that's just not going to happen. Nor indeed is there anything in what I said which would constitute "misinformation" for me to strike. With respect, you and Zanahary both seem to be a) missing the point that I am not in fact accusing you of anything, but rather using a counterfactual to explain to you why your own commentary is unhelpful; and b) conflating the meaning of the words "specific" and "personal". Just because you made your assessment of "witch burning" one that applies to a large number of people (who simply happen to have different view on the proposal from yours) rather than referencing one particular person does not mean that every person you thus branded does not have reason to feel insulted by your characterization. Indeed, the fact that your implication was broad merely means that you made this personalized assessment against a large number of people; personal offense does not dilute with numbers in such context.

  But more to the gist of what I am trying to communicate to you, you are illustrating the very point I was trying to emphasize. These are precisely the types of unnecessary, extraneous, and unhelpful side discussions which begin to take over a conversation that is meant to be focused on the issues at hand when you start to introduce wild speculation about the supposed motives and psychology of your rhetorical opposition. And, as genuinely motivated my original comment to you in part, that becomes deeply prejudicial to the person against whom sanctions are being considered. Because such a person almost always benefits from a cooler temperature in the discussion. As soon as you introduce invective about how the other side is out to get someone (for...reasons?), or only endorsing action out of some kind of group-think variety of reflexive and vindictive impulse, you increase the tension in the discussion and decrease the likelihood of limited or no sanctions. Even as you nominally attempt to defend David here, by using such an approach to discussion, you hurt his interests. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  These are precisely the types of unnecessary, extraneous, and unhelpful side discussions which begin to take over a conversation that is meant to be focused on the issues at hand when you start to introduce wild speculation about the supposed motives and psychology of your rhetorical opposition. This is embarrassing. You decided to write a novella-length “I’m not touching you!” and now you want to chide the editor whose quite general and inoffensive comment you replied to with a backmasked “are you sad because you’re ugly?” ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Look, I can barely track what the intended meaning behind your putting-words-in-my-mouth metaphors are there, but I can gather enough to assure you that you are way off base as to what animated my comment, which was a sincere desire that David receive a fair hearing-out, and that if there is a decision to CBAN him, that it result from the merits of the argument that such is necessary to protect the project. Not because one or more of his would-be defenders riled everyone up. And let me be clear about one thing: I don't think that passing commentary that one believes that ANI sanction discussions can escalate quickly is problematic in itself. That's a reasonable observation.

  But when Randy starts to frame all !votes contrary to his view as attempts to "witch burn" or participate in a "feeding frenzy", then that starts to cross the line into invective that serves no purpose but to inflame sentiments and entrench the positions of those who have concerns about David's conduct. We are talking about a user who has used Wikipedia as a platform to broadcast his pet theory that Jewish men should perhaps be considered morally and legally permitted to rape "captive" women. Said user is already topic banned from ARBPIA topics, and has come in for community and ArbCom sanctions repeatedly in the past. And yet Randy's interpretation is that the only explanation for why some community members may be considering a CBAN in those circumstances is that they are prone to reflexive and punitive mob mentality.

  That's a pretty dubious conclusion to draw, but Randy is entitled to his view. However, when he voices that opinion with the kind of provocative, intemperate language he chose in this situation, he does absolutely no favours to the person against whom sanctions are being considered. If David is to stay on this project, it will require nuanced discussion, not random, unprovoked broadsides launched at uninvolved volunteers contributing their perspectives to this discussion in good faith. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Once again - nailed it, no notes. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 08:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Even if this passes, I think we're in an "indefinite until you make it clear you understand the problem" territory. It's perplexing that David seems to repeatedly ruin his own efforts to communicate this understanding. All this should take is a sans-excuses "I understand that it is NEVER appropriate to use a euphemism for rape outside of a direct quote, even if it's in the source text and even if I think it makes for prettier writing. I'll go back through my contribs and fix any such issues I may have introduced". Then don't defeat that statement by trying to justify it again. If we had that, I don't think anybody would be calling for a cban here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral on CBAN. An indefinite ban on anything to do with Israel, religion (especially Judaism) and anything relating to sex is obviously necessary. A long and detailed text detailing and displaying profound understanding of what he has done wrong would be required for this to be reconsidered.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Strong support CBAN

Going into this, a CBAN felt a touch drastic for an editor at least trying to comply to some degree with regs, and I was going to fall into the camp of "TBAN on a bunch of topics". But the more I read his responses, the more I see him doing everything possible to dig himself deeper.But where, for God's sake, have we heard that in an article such as this we cannot interchange the verbs rape, coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion when describing the laws relating to this woman? Bloody hell mate.

EDIT: Having read more, omfg begone with him

Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support partial topic ban
  I am always surprised at what can raise me from my slumber. What I see here is a subject matter expert, which we need, having tremendous difficulty participating in the project, which we obviously don't. Articles about biblical issues, certainly in a Jewish context but I would assume also in a Christian context, are hotbeds for this sort of dispute; they exist at the intersection of history and anthropology, and the experts summarizing the subject matter tend not to be either historians or anthropologists. I've had this thought about a few editors over the years, but never vocalized it: perhaps we should compel David to work in drafts and clear his efforts with other users, like sprotting a tban. I know we've done similar things before, but I've been inactive too long to name cases. That sanction would end the damaging edits, and prevent the ensuing debates from affecting users who might not have the emotional or intestinal fortitude to go rounds with him, but preserve his ability to carefully contribute material that most of us are unequipped to produce. --Moralis (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN, support Moralis' proposal. Apply by analogy the rules of COI editing. So, when editing in the concerned areas, needs to use AfC and should subsequetly propose changes on the talk page.—Alalch E. 19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is a good idea! I support it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I think there is a communication issue, but while I personally would see the act being described as rape and personally would see this topic as sexist, I think the editing issue is whether the system of law in issue (the topic itself) sees it as rape, and whether there is reliably sourced commentary on rape or sexism that should be added to the article, or other reliably sourced critique that should be added. (To make an analogy, some law systems define 'murder', and define 'manslaughter', or 'justifiable homicide', and we have to explain in an article on that law system what those distinctions are according to the sources, not whether we approve of those distinctions, but whether qualified sources comment on those distinctions.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  No offense intended Alan, but I think you've inaccurately summarized and framed the issues there. David was not attempting to quote primary (but otherwise reliable) sources providing alternative views to more typical social norms or principles of law on the definition of rape. He was attempting to insert extremely fringe (and that word hardly seems to even suffice in this instance) views suggesting that rape should not be considered a crime when practiced by Jewish men (and by extrapolation to the modern context, Israeli soldiers) upon "captive" women, in Wikipedia's voice. Or at least, his prose extolled that an intelligent and reasonable student of international law would at least consider such an argument. Honestly, even citing such an argument as a significant minority view almost certainly would have been rejected, based on its fringe character and lack of adequate sourcing to support it, with potential to land us here. Because you're not going to find any formal standard espousing such a principle adopted by Israel or any of its allies in the modern world, nor any major Jewish authority engaged with modern positive law, nor any other serious secondary voice considering the validity of such a standard in the context of modern international law.

  So the "this polity/culture may define murder this or that way" analogy is inapposite to this situation. But that's rather beside the point, because David didn't even attempt to use that one-step-removed approach, but rather entered this disturbing argument into an article in Wikivoice. We just cannot have content like that going into our articles. It vitiates the encyclopedia's credibility as an even remotely neutral source of knowledge and makes it a fount of extremely dubious (and indeed, ugly and dangerous) editorialized original thought. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban, support topic ban on articles relating to Judaism, recommend Cullen's mentorship suggestion. I had never come across David's work before this week and I tend to avoid ban discussions, but I find both the article in question and David's conduct here quite disturbing. My most charitable reading is that David is very out of touch with the linguistic norms of both the broad English Wikipedia community and the English-speaking world of the 21st century, as well as expectations of what baseline religious knowledge we might share, as seen in this response to Huldra. Regardless of his intentions, he doesn't seem capable of writing content on this topic in a manner appropriate for an encyclopaedia aimed at a contemporary global readership. However his later responses here, and Cullen's and Huldra's comments, suggest he may be amenable to guidance from (very patient) editors with appropriate expertise in this topic. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban as an overreaction. That said, there does appear to be a CIR issue here: although Davidbena suggests on his userpage that he is a native English speaker, he apparently knows nothing about modern English conceptions of rape and has chosen to use a 70+ year-old translation as a linguistic source. I'd suggest that he adjust the Babel box on his userpage to reflect his actual understanding of English. I'd also support a TBAN on Judaism, as he appears to have no idea how to write for a non-specialist audience, which means that most of his work will fail the relevant guideline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Now support CBAN per TurboSuperA's evidence below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Davidbena has demonstrated an unwillingness to learn from mistakes and an egregious misunderstanding of Wikipedia's community norms. At this point, a ban seems warranted.

Birdsinthewindow (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose ban per rsjaffe. Andre🚐 05:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN (or essentially any topic bans as second choice). I didn't want to be here any more than anyone else but it's truly impressive how deep a hole Davidbena has dug for himself by repeatedly failing to acknowledge any kind of wrongdoing here. The original use of euphemisms is IMO more worthy of a trout than a CBAN; what's CBAN-worthy is the wholesale failure of WP:CIR in this thread. Loki (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter. Anybody can be wrong, even very badly wrong. It is also possible to be badly wrong and not to accept that you are, while altering your unacceptable behaviour. But editors need to be able to understand and process that the comments of the community so that they can avoid future mistakes, even when they feel they are in the right.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. This seems horrendous euphemism, and willful clueness by DavidBena of community members pointing out what this is just as horrendous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN, or else topic ban(s), for CIR reasons. I have been feeling very conflicted over this, because being taken to task at AN/I is very stressful and I think that's a reason to give people some slack about the things they write in an AN/I discussion about themselves. I can ascribe Davidbena's responses to me higher up in this thread (where he seems not to understand the difference between quoting a source verbatim, paraphrasing, and using Wikivoice) to that. But there are just too many issues, and I think SnowRise's summary from 9:56, 10 April shows that pretty clearly. I also hope that if Davidbena is CBANned, he will take the opportunity to read Wikipedia and gain a deeper understanding, leading to a successful appeal in a year or so. --bonadea contributions talk 20:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN; if that doesn't gain consensus then support TBAN from ARBPIA, again, and from Judaism. It took me a while, as a rare ban-supporter, distracted by the doubling down on bad translation without citing any published translation or Hebrew-English dictionary, but that and other evasion above is Judaism TBAN-worthy. Yet it's worse; Davidbena published this in article space, full-formed, as an article that presents a carve-out for rape"so that Jewish soldiers on the battlefield may remain blameless", arguing that "international law" could not override this. Davidbena's recent ARBPIA limited ban was lifted in November 2024. If this was the first time DavidBena had backslid, a full broadly-construed ARBPIA and Judaism TBAN might be appropriate, but he was also topic-banned in at least 2018, 2019 and 2022, with intervening blocks, failed appeals and other restrictions – I can't track it all. I see many past assurances of having learned, but now it seems only a CBAN will prevent further harm. NebY (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from Judaism, Israel and religion, broadly construed. Either they will find other areas to edit on Wikipedia or they'll stop editing cause they are only interested in that topic area, which is effectively a CBAN. It is a WP:NOTHERE editor who is pushing a POV:

• Support community ban. David's comments in this very discussion, where I presume he is making an effort to be as reasonable as possible, are often extremely worrying. For example his suggestions that the word "connexion" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (which is clearly in turn a euphemism for rape) "sounds more professional" or "sounds more encyclopedic" are downright scary. (He defends them with the comment "some words are nicer than others from a literary standpoint".) I feel I have to support a community ban. A T-ban from sex and/or religion might also work, but what won't work is this discussion gliding off into an archive again (compare Fram's OP) because of the varying suggestions. Really, let's do something here. Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC).
• Support community Ban Doug Weller talk 10:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN, but though I would support COI-esque restrictions. What I see is preference to use more familiar (and in this case archaic) language, not deliberate whitewashing. JayCubby 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CTBAN from all topics involving non-consensual sexual intercourse rape, and y'know what? If David proves to be a problem—beyond the term "Davidbena" showing up 89 times across this page, in contexts nearly always concerning his clear inability to differentiate "rape" and "not rape"—it may well be time for indef because no unpaid volunteer should have to deal with this problematic-ness. More than enough rope has been allowed. BarntToust 18:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @BarntToust: I assume you meant to support a TBAN, not CBAN? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, yes, a TBAN. Thank you! BarntToust 21:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN or CBAN I know Davidbena has made a lot of contributions but it's hard to see him as a net positive with this article. I'd rather Wikipedia not have an article on this topic than the synthy mess it is right now (and that's after a fair amount of cleanup). He's been editing for 11+ years and still hasn't learned to cite modern, scholarly publications rather than religious texts directly. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support cban Blaming Maimonides for one's own WP:WHITEWASHing of language wil not cut it. Per User:Onorem, "Holy fuck" at thinking words like "connexion" are synonyms of rape, and even if one does personally believe that (or Maimonides tells you to), to actually say, here, that it is artistically preferable and more literary in what is meant to be an educational tool (etc.) is moving towards CIR territory. Support t-ban as a very weak second best, per Bishonen. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• support CBAN: per SnowRise & Bishonen. he has had so many chances to reflect in the past when he was sanctioned. we're well out of ROPE at this point and the passage TurboSuperA+ quotes above is just entirely beyond the pale - why is anyone willing to tolerate this? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN (or, failing that, TBAN for anything involving sex, Israel-Palestine, or Judaism): I'm frankly surprised that there are people who are still willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. When a user is falsely citing sources to claim that there's any kind of "debate" in international law about whether or not rape is/should be legal if your religion says it's okay, and when that same user takes an unreasonably long time to acknowledge why it isn't acceptable to treat the terms "sexual intercourse" and "rape" as interchangeable, or uses their own subjective translation of a source to replace "rape" with some obscure, archaic word and then defends it with "well it sounds nicer" (effectively admitting that he was trying to make raping women sound less nasty), then they're really not someone who should be in the community. If anything the fact that his initial version of the page explicitly said he was talking about "non-consensual sex" only makes it worse: he knew exactly what he was talking about, and he still went out of his way to describe it in as vague and inoffensive a way as possible, and then tried to falsely imply that "rape is okay if you're Jewish" is a legitimate interpretation of international law (which, try as I might, I cannot possibly believe he actually thought was a viewpoint any scholar of international law has ever held, especially since he admits that he knew the source in question made no mention of this viewpoint). --Tulzscha (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN.Above I stated I was neutral on a CBAN, given the evidence presented that the user has been writing WP:OR apologia for the rape of captives in an ongoing conflict, the idea that I might be part of a project in which this user is welcome makes me want to vomit.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Tulzscha above. Rape is rape, and doesn't somehow become something else because of the religion of the rapist. We wouldn't (I hope) try to use gentler language if it was a Christian or Muslim perpetrator based on holy texts or centuries-old philosophers, and we shouldn't for Jewish perpetrators. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. If this were only about scholarly commentary on the morals of people from a long-ago age, clearly distinguishing them from the morals of today, that would be one thing, but the commentary suggesting that these archaic attitudes should still be respected and followed today takes it far over the line. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN: Upon further deliberation and recognition of DavidBena's problematic editing, it's clear that his most notable contribution to the project is... ugh, there aren't words to describe how baffling... I'm frankly disgusted at observing how his "rationale" works. We don't need his ideologies on rape, not "conexion" or "non-consensual hanky-panky" on enWiki. BarntToust 12:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN: They're clearly pushing one particular POV on the topic in a WP:TEND way; while this alone might be resolveable with a lesser sanction, their continued refusal to get the point across multiple discussions makes it clear that they're not going to improve or change. --Aquillion (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak oppose CBAN , support TBAN from sex, oppose TBAN for Judaism (though agree he should check with Cullen or others before creating new articles on anything with chance of being controversial.) David's been disruptive here & a few times in the past, but reviewing his contribs his more characteristic edits seem to be peacefully expanding articles on Mediterranean herbs & similar useful work. Per Cullen, the OG version of BCW was far from rape apologia, prominently asserting in the lede that the act isuniversally thought-of as being repugnant. I don't read the international law thing as a normative argument. Rather it's a broadly correct description of the situation. (albeit not actually correct, it was a mistake to write it on several levels, but not so big a mistake as to warrant a permaban.)

FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable:The version of Beautiful Captive Women which the user produced contains the following statement in wikivoice:

The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law and whether violators should be punished for any breach thereof when it comes to conquest by war, or can it be said that these laws override international law, since they themselves are a form of legal jurisprudence? (Quincy Wright, 1917) Moreover, can laws rendered by non-Jewish courts of law become binding upon the people of Israel who are governed by different laws? (no source) According to Quincy Wright, there have been legal precedents where, in a conflict between a newer statute having international implications (such as a law enshrined in 19th-century law and an older, more provincial law), the older and more provincial law prevailed.(Quincy Wright 1917) During the Israeli-Lebanese war of 1982–1985, a Jewish soldier took as a wife a Lebanese woman whom he met while seeing action.(no source)

This is a text which uses a hundred year old source, which does not mention Jewish law, to introduce into wikipedia the WP:OR opinion that rape of female captives by Israeli soldiers is possibly legal. Not legal under arcane and theoretical Jewish religious law, legal here and now. Are you seriously suggesting somebody who is prepared to add text such as that to our pages is safe to be let loose here? I wonder if a user who wrote in wikivoice an equivocal passage on whether the Islamic State selling non-Muslim women as sex slaves was possibly legal would be viewed as charitably. And it is worth pointing out that rape of captives by Israeli soldiers is very much something that is happening now, not a theoretical question, so this is an attempt to justify ongoing war crimes.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

We agree writing the passage was a WP:OR violation, and a mistake on several levels. And more importantly that anyone trying to justify rape of captives in an ongoing conflict, warrants a CBAN at the very least. But unless I'm misunderstanding you, we disagree on whether that's actually David's intention, whether what he wrote is likely to have effects in that direction, and about which laws are 'arcane and theoretical'. It's international law that meets that description in the context of having influence on practical conduct in a war, as sourced in the box. In Israel religious law is an intensely practical matter, and how to resolve conflicts with secular law is hotly debated. Albeit more the conflict with secular domestic law, not international. IMO, rather than trying to justify rape, David was trying to do the opposite (perhaps only sub consciously), drawing attention to the contrast between religious law (e.g., despicable as it might be, they are supposed to free the captive if they don't marry her) and the horrendous othering happening on the ground in the conflict right now. David said he was in a "state of mild shock" thanks to this ANI, and that was back on 10 April when the case against him was less fierce. At least now if he reads this he'll see some of the community still see him as having good faith reasons. This said, also sorry reviewing this situation has caused you to want to vomit. It's quite common for folk to experience secondary trauma if they look to deep into the detail on this sort of matter, so I won't be further replying here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

there are many other fish in the sea when it comes to busywork and random contribs. Davidbena's other contributions are very replacable, and anything he—and everyone else does here—are not necessary for the encyclopedia to exist. I'm sure we'll live not having a few articles about some herbs. The above, and so much more of what David does prove that he doesn't need to be a part of the community. BarntToust 14:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Many folk find David's gentle style more persuasive

That's the problem. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be persuasive, WP:SOAPBOX.

David standing by his preference for partial use of euphemism

His "preference" goes against Wikipedia guidelines, MOS:EUPHEMISM.

This said, WP:RGW precludes violating policy like WP:OR even for noble ends. [!!]

even if sanctioned by Deuteronomy.

You're literally praising David's problematic behaviour and doubling down on the excuses "even if sanctioned by Deuteronomy".

Can an admin who is participating in this thread look at this and warn this user before they get themselves in trouble also?
@Bishonen, @The Bushranger, @Star Mississippi (sorry if I forgot someone) TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's...definitely a word salad Feyd posted. I honestly can't tell if they're advocating for what David's is (which it seems like from their overall wording) or somehow think his position was opposing that which he was clearly advocating for (which their exact words seem to imply). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I also read Feyd's post as saying that they interpret Davidbena's text as being critical of Jewish law and implying that it should not be followed. I don't understand how they can have come to that reading, but I think that's their argument.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Looking at just the herb/plant edits there are a lot of issues... If we set asside the ones that overlap with Israeli politics we are left with ones like Withania somnifera where Davidbenna hasn't done much other than wage a slow edit war to include traditional uses... Twice in 2015[11][12], in 2021[13], 2022[14], and 2024[15]. They've never commented on that talk page either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN, I had doubts coming in to this discussion that a CBAN was appropriate but Davidbena convinced me of the need particularly with this comment[16]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• I believe user:DavidBena is now sockpuppeting using anonymous IP on this article. Ogress 17:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  can you, for ease's sake, provide WP:DIFFs of the IP edits you believe are analogous to Davidbena's editing? BarntToust 17:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

User @Skyerise: has repeatedly shown incivility and a general disregard for WP:PARITY in religious/spiritual articles, with a history of combative editing to add New Religious Movement content.

At one point I apologized for us disagreeing on an AfD about an article they created and attempted to reset relations (diff), they responded in a way that indicates WP:OWN issues (diff). In the past they have engaged in retaliatory warnings on user talk pages diff (the original context is my only edit on the page in dispute here, which I'll point out didn't involve any maintenance templates at all, they got very mad that WP:FTN wanted "created" instead of "discovered" for a system invented by an individual)

After that AfD concluded with “keep,” I raised the concerns behind my AfD more specifically on the talk page but got a reply of "I won't engage, go fuck yourself" (hedged as GooFY) diff. The full quote:

("The AfD indicated SYNTH wasn't an issue" is certainly a creative read of the AfD) This is an area I edit frequently in and am knowledgable about, so it's inevitable we overlap, and I'm trying to be sensitive to the fact that they seem to be taking some of this personally (which is why I only engaged on the talk page and didn't just edit their contributions, especially right after the AfD). They appear to have gotten into another similar dispute at Holomovement in the time I’ve been writing this (diff), which includes the same sort of "Screw you, I'm right, there is no need to be collaborative" approach that seems to dominate their editing on these topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This is nothing more than "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" animosity toward notable and documentable world views. I've done nothing wrong here, and I've produced a great amount of missing content. I won't be further engaging in this kangaroo court where someone surely deserves a WP:BOOMARANG here. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

animosity toward notable and documentable world views

As I have repeatedly tried pointing out to Skyerise, my concerns around WP:PARITY and WP:NPOV do not mean animosity. This is sort of the issue I see with Skyerise's editing: either you accept their understanding of WP:PARITY or you are out to attack the messanger and hostile to the topic. Any editor who looks closely at my contributions on Wikipedia or commons can see that trying to paint me as hostile to these topics is going to be a very much off the mark. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment here's the AfD in question [17] - as is evident the closer noted the subject was notable and warranted a standalone page and that WP:SYNTH concerns could be addressed via standard editing (no WP:TNT) - it did not say that the WP:SYNTH concerns were illegitimate or fully resolved by the AfD. With that being said I do think that Warrenmck is coming in a bit hot here and that the push-back they're getting from Skyerise is in part because of the forcefulness of their response. I would recommend both parties recommit to collegiality, remember that there is no deadline, and collaborate to identify and improve those areas of the article where WP:SYNTH may be present. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I do think that Warrenmck is coming in a bit hot here and that the push-back they're getting from Skyerise is in part because of the forcefulness of their response.

  I'd actually appreciate some clarification around the "forcefulness of response" comment if we're including more than the ANI, since I feel that my actual talk page thread was quite conciliatory and acknowledged how much work they'd put in. I've tried, for months, to cool things down so we can cooperatively edit pages together because we both have niche knowledge in the same domain and end up overlapping a fair bit, and I'd sort of like that considered in the context of me "coming in hot" considering the whole "go fuck yourself" thing.

remember that there is no deadline, and collaborate to identify and improve those areas of the article where WP:SYNTH may be present

The "Go fuck yourself" comment was directly in response to the thing you're asking for. I'm not sure what more I can do to engage civilly, and I sincerely mean that.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Not that I was looking to jump into an ANI thread this morning before my coffee but I've come across the Holomovement page (mentioned above) and the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics § Holomovement: redirect or delete? discussion and have since left {{alert/first|pa}} for pseudo and fringe science contentious topic concerns in Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science on this and another editor's talk page and to say that I favour neither's actions here. That's really the only extent I care to get involved in here and I agree that editors might consider recommitting to collegiality. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that editors might consider recommitting to collegiality.

  I've tried, so I'd appreciate this not being framed as a "both editors" thing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I want to walk back my impression that there was maybe justifiable heat to spark this incivility having done a little bit of looking into the background here. Even a relatively brief interaction with Skyerise demonstrated some slightly troubling tendencies to disregard sourcing concerns and to redirect source discussion back toward interpersonal disputes such as in the latter half of this discussion. [18] Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It feels worth pointing out I'm not the first person Skyerise has had issues with on this topic, a thread raised before my AfD discussing synth concerns at the same article was met with quite a reply to @Wound theology (diff):

Attempting discussion with you has always been a waste of time; the deity yoga of tantra has been defined as a form of theurgy. I rest my case and will simply continue to expand the article without explaining myself to you or responding to any further attacks to my scholarhip or motives.

It looks like Skyerise is quick to meet content disputes or scrutiny with hostility. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

In her defense I have had practically nothing but disputes with her; so it's not like there isn't a lot more context to her reaction. That being said, Skyerise is undoubtedly a valuable editor who has done a lot for the project -- unfortunately her chronic incivility and quickness to anger will be the death of her. Perhaps it is improper, but I have generally refrained from participating in this particular discussion about civility because the talk page dispute ended relatively amicably and she has been thanking me for my edits to the page, and honestly, I didn't want to ruin our first positive interactions. Seems like it doesn't matter anymore. I'm tired. wound theology◈ 02:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

In her defense I have had practically nothing but disputes with her

Right, but me too. There seems to be this chronic desire to be left alone to their own devices on these pages and other editors intruding in the process are unwelcome unless they take no issues with Skyerise’s work.

They’ve retaliatory tagged erroneous warning templates on user talk pages, edit warred, tried claiming procedural violations to restore WP:PROFRINGE content removed by multiple editors, and in general seem to play fast and loose with sources when synthesizing information on article pages. Couple all of this with being highly prolific and it’s no shock that editors involved in these topics routinely have had issues with Skyerise. I’m fairly certain it’s not just you and me where this has been going on for a while. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I've repeatedly pointed out multiple overview sources that explicitly link all the covered topics under the conceptual framework. I've repeated that here. This is a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, where I've provided the requested proof that this isn't WP:SYNTH or WP:COATRACK, but the OP refuses to acknowledge or even discuss the sources, and continues to beat a dead horse, apparently (to me) as a form of justifiable WP:HARASSMENT. That's simply not collegial. Skyerise (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The content dispute is secondary to you telling an editor you won’t engage and to go fuck themselves, to be clear. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said that. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

A standalone "GooFY!" with the G, F, and Y capitalized at the end of that sentence was, of course, referring to the famed 1934 Disney character with a slip of the shift key when typing. Silly me. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Skyerise, if I'd seen that edit at the time I would probably have blocked you because it's a fairly clear "go fuck yourself". If you are genuinely claiming now that it wasn't, and given your long block log for this type of thing, I'm considering blocking you anyway right now, and for longer. So what do you claim it means? Think carefully here. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I should have spelled it goo-FEE, I guess. Just putting the emphasis on the second syllable. Skyerise (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I am incredibly unconvinced but it's late here and I'm not going to block and run, if anyone else is equally unconvinced please feel free to do what you wish... Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Why were you putting emphasis on the second syllable?? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Black Kite won't, but I will. If they'd just owned up to it, they'd have gotten a warning. The denials and deflection? No, that's not on. That's absolutely "go fuck yourself", no amount of wikilawyering will change that, and the fact they deflected and denied means it'll happen again unless blocked - so they're blocked. Given this is not their first block for personal attacks and incivility, it's for three months. No comment on any other conduct issues in this dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The block is ridiculously harsh, and the reasoning behind it is hardly copper-bottomed either.  Tewdar  07:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not shy about it: if I'd wanted to say "go fuck yourself", I'd have spelled it out exactly as quoted, rather than implying it. - Sounds more believable than the block rationale to me.  Tewdar  07:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Me too. Halbared (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Would it be unreasonable to ask for an editing restriction from religion topics when they return? From @Wound theology's comment above ("In her defense I have had practically nothing but disputes with her", which mirrors my experience editing on these topics going back to at least October when they fought with WP:FTN over a specific religious technique being described as "discovered" rather than "created") I'm worried that this is so inevitably going to happen again, and the second they get back to religious topics that we're going to either be right back here or letting it play out again for months before they cross a line as explicitly as they did here.

I think that their repeated explicit refusal to work with other editors on these topics, or accept any major criticism of their work, would make it imperative that they demonstrate a recommitment to civility outside of religion articles. In those, they tend to move extremely fast and without any willingness to cooperate in and there are repeated questions about appropriate sourcing (the most egregious I can think of is citing a literal necromancer and referring to them as a historian for the purposes of WP:RS diff).

It's clear that these articles are becoming dominated by Skyerise which combines with their unwillingness to engage and apparently some serious WP:SYNTH concerns (since they provided sources at Talk:Divine embodiment there have been repeated concerns that the sources don't make the claims attached)...

I think these topics are too controversial at their core to tolerate editing that is openly hostile to other perspectives, considering this goes way back. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on these issues (although I lean towards a final chance per Bushranger), but I want to point out that being aliteral necromancer doesn't preclude one from being a historian. I'm not convinced Jake Stratton-Kent is reliable as a historian, and I'm actually quite critical of certain other occult scholars for a lack of rigor in their work, but there are lots of scholar-practitioners in the field of Western Esotericism today. wound theology◈ 08:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh I’m very aware of scholar-practitioners, I’ve just been unable to find any evidence he is one, as opposed to “a practitioner who publishes a lot”. Typically when we look at scholar-practitioners they tend to have formal academic training, and often appointments, to validate the “scholar” part. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, good block. I strongly disagree with the notion that it was harsh; words have consequences. — E_F⁵ 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

What did you mean by "GooFY"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

[ˌguˈfiː], perhaps?  Tewdar  07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, yes you absolutely did. Don't try and claim otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong (I cannot read Skyerise's mind), but I am saying that a three month block is a harsh remedy for something based on assumptions (what "GooFY" was intended to mean, and, contingent upon that assumption, how sincere Skyerise's explanation was). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If it was their first block, I'd agree. But this editor has a history of blocks, going back over nearly fifteen years, for personal attacks and incivility - it's obvious they have never gotten the message that civility is not optional, and I seriously considered simply indeffing, as it's not "based on assumptions", it's what any reasonable person would read it as. I decided on three months to give a final chance for the civility lesson to sink in; maybe I'm being overly hopeful, but good faith springs eternal. (I will note in their unblock request they've doubled down on the "just emphasis was meant" explanation, which remains entirely unconvincing.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Under these circumstances a three month block is lenient, not harsh. Frankly, their continued trolling/denial should result in the block being converted to indefinite until they admit wrongdoing and pledge not to repeat the behavior. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Genuinely pledge, not whatever this is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as I’m also a linguist I must admit that particular degree has never accidentally caused me to tell someone to go fuck themselves. Perhaps unless they advocate too strongly for Nostratic, then it might become a bit reflexive.^{[just kidding]} Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell by an internet search the word "GooFY", uppercase or lowercase, meaning 'Go Fuck Yourself' is a new usage for the word and someone should add it to the Urban Dictionary. If others would take a few minutes and do a better job of searching the net to find it, especially in uppercase, please do so. To be banned for three months for discovering a new way of saying 'Go fuck yourself' when even lowercase Goofy isn't used that way, does not seem like the Skyerise I've read or interacted with here who, as she claims, if wanting to say "Go fuck yourself" to Warrenmck she would just do so. If the usage cannot be found elsewhere on the net, who gets discovery credit, Skyerise for writing it or Warrenmck for being hurt by it? If it is a common way of saying "Go fuck yourself" or "Go Fuck Yourself", then my sincere apology for not being clued-in (kids these days!). But if it isn't, then this may be a three month ban for saying something is silly. Thank goddess I went with my gut and didn't 3RR on a very recent ownership issue that Warrenmck and I have been involved in, and which an administrator may or may not be looking at but I haven't checked in a couple of days. Anyway, I personally would suggest time-served on a good faith three-month block because this seems to be a he-said she-said thing concerning a (maybe) newly-discovered meaning of a word. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

sigh at the risk of creating more drama in an ANI I raised that's already got enough drama:

Hi Randy, considering it hasn't felt like I can comment anywhere on Wikipedia this week without you accusing me of vandalism (diff), edit warring (for a single revert and starting a talk page discussion, diff) following me to random projects we've never interacted on to insult me (diff), and openly and explicitly refused to engage in BRD by saying it's "too long to read" until you get your way (diff) even to the point of breaking pages and refusing to discuss or acknowledge that (diff) when I was trying to explain in both edit summaries and on the talk page why you were unintentionally breaking pages (diff), and especially considering that when you asked for an admin to weigh in I pinged both @Valereee and @SnowRise (diff) perhaps it's time that you recognize that this is well past the point of reasonable?

I'm genuinely sick of these interactions, and the aspersion-y ramble above continues this. This all seems to be a direct result of me directly asking you if this was a personal issue or harassment (diff) because it had already felt that way. Your behaviour here has been a bit obsessive and I'd sincerely appreciate a mutual IBAN, either voluntarily or enforced.

Tagging the admins that I directly raised these issues with privately. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, what else can "GooFY" possibly mean, though? Just because nobody's used it before doesn't mean that it can't hold meaning. Warren also brought up a pretty damning WP:HOUND argument. — E_F⁵ 13:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If it is a new word then a ban of any kind seems guesswork. Taking Skyerise at good faith that she didn't mean what people say it means seems the thing to do for a new meaning of an old word. And Yikes. Yes, if you take the hounding argument as face value with no checking, it is pretty damning...but, if you look into it, is nonexistent. Warren, is this how touchy you are to criticism and, more importantly, perceived criticism? Don't get me mixed up in your feelings please, as you seemed to do at my talk page, and aspersions (no, I'm not obsessive about you, you are again imagining something - please see the discussion at my talk page). If any admin wants to look into this, please, do so, as I can't revert Warrenmck's removal of a 12-year-old template and replacing it with a new and well-done navbox that should be kept but renamed (why use the name of an existing and well-done template?) more than twice for fear of this kind of overreaction (just one example from above: many of the article's he edits are on my watchlist and interest areas and there we meet, I don't follow fellow editors). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you take the hounding argument as face value with no checking, it is pretty damning

I welcome sanctions with open arms if I misrepresented anything in my prior post. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I hope you don't get sanctions, not needed, but maybe don't be so darn touchy and engage in the conversation and not the perceived slights. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I think contextualizing this as me being touchy or sensitive is an interesting interpretation of a situation where an editor told two editors with concerns that they were unwilling to engage and capped it with “go fuck yourself”. What other avenue would you propose for someone completely refusing to engage or allow any deviation from their preferred structure for an article? The fact that you can’t see past me being the filer to the underlying behaviour issue is why I think you’re getting a bit odd with this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The capital 'G' may be because it was the first letter of a new sentence.  Tewdar  13:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Tewdar, okay, that's believable, but the "F" and "Y" aren't the start of sentences. — E_F⁵ 13:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

See the IPA in my comment up there somewhere.  Tewdar  13:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

i.e."goo-FEE!"  Tewdar  14:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the Uzbek pronunciation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

We all used to pronounce bonus as 'bo-NUS!' when we were children round my way. It was probably very funny if you were six years old.  Tewdar  14:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

We are entering post-semantic territory. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw that, but I really doubt that's what they meant. "FY" is as clear a "fuck yourself" as it gets, and paired with the uppercase "G" (the "GO" in "GFY") I really think there shouldn't be a benefit-of-a-doubt. I concur (I like that word!) with Randy, it indeed is a creative use of the term, but a use nonetheless. — E_F⁵ 14:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe for emphasis, as in Goofee for silly? Skyerise says if she meant "Go Fuck Yourself" she would have said it plainly. In good faith, if GooFY is not common usage for that suggestion, how can we create it here? Sources? This is a goofy (silly) discussion all around and could easily be closed as a nothing burger and move on but for the block. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ought it not to be people proving 'goofy' as some slang for 'f'yourself?' Isn't that where the preponderance should lie? Halbared (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

GFY is an acronym for "go fuck yourself" with currency. That makes sense. "I was exclaiming 'goofy' with emphasis on the latter syllable" does not make any sense at all. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

They put the wrong emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle.  Tewdar  18:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I find this diff fairly convincing that if Skyerise wanted to tell Warren to go fuck themself Skyerise would have simply said "go fuck yourself". I do not find the GFY explanation in the least bit plausible. Admins should not be blocking based on sketchy 'vibes'.  Tewdar  14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to A-t-D, then. — E_F⁵ 14:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

See, round my way, AtD means something very very rude indeed...  Tewdar  14:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

From the Martian template, @EF5:

I genuinely think this all started when an editor Randy was close to got CBANed in an ANI I raised, since then they’ve followed me around being instantly contrarian. If you look at the AfD of the page that started all this, Randy hopped in without reading it (per his admission) and said it looked fine and passed GNG, which… never was the concern (diff). I took it to his talk page and asked if it was personal, and since then he’s gone a bit ballistic and followed me around Wikipedia ever since, and here can’t imagine that there’s a behaviour issue to address outside of me being overly sensitive despite four (!) editors weighing in now with concerns.

I also hope it’s not lost that his counter to my hounding claims was to accuse me of misrepresenting the evidence, which joins other aspersions he’s cast elsewhere (diffs in the Wikihounding complaint above) and I’d certainly appreciate not just being 100% glossed over, given the context. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Warrenmck, I think it'd be best to start a new report if you feel that is needed. The discussion here is long and messy. — E_F⁵ 14:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think given the credence being given to the stress emphasis arguments above and the history of being asked to summarize extremely complex ANIs in 300 words if I want an admin to read them I’m probably too low in confidence right now to want to expend the effort. My ocean of diffs has been met with un-cited “nuh uh he’s lying”, and I sincerely am burned out from dealing with Randy, which is why I’ve repeatedly asked for a self-imposed mutual WP:IBAN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
I'm intrigued. The worst usage I could find for it (according to AF) is "Acquired Toilet Disease", which isn't even that bad. — E_F⁵ 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

None of the posts above convince me that this block, in its extension, was necessary or even warranted. Boh. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Back of house? Bank of Hawaii? Bunch of..?  Tewdar  18:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry: boh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ---Sluzzelin talk 18:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Note that there was no block based onsketchy 'vibes'. The meaning was blatant, and the suggestions that it was "emphasis" are preposterous; the fact so many editors apparently believe the claim is even more so. That said, their most recent unblock request appears to genuinely understand that what they said was a problem regardless, and if any reviewing admin believes that an unblock is appropriate at this time, they don't need to do the 'consult the blocking admin' thing first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

That said, their most recent unblock request appears to genuinely understand that what they said was a problem regardless

@The Bushranger I feel like in the mess of interpretations a lot of sight has been lost of the other continual issues around that GFY, such as aAttempting discussion with you has always been a waste of time; ... I rest my case and will simply continue to expand the article without explaining myself to you or responding to any further attacks to my scholarhip or motives. Even @Simonm223 above expressed difficulties with cooperative editing and walked back concerns that Skyerise's lack of civility was a response to heat.

The immediate post before the most recent unblock request was a re-rendering of a poem about Jews in the Holocaust to lament their persecution on-wiki. If it takes two and a half hours to go from that to sincerely reformed I would still request a TBAN be considered in the event of their apparently possibly imminent return until they've demonstrated an ability to edit civilly. Three out of three editors on the article that spawned this whole ANI experienced hostility for quite civil engagement. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Skyerise now appears to be engaging in some weird WP:OUTing behavior? Nothing on Wikipedia speaks to where I live, so that’s a weird reply. diff. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

(Peanut gallery comment) Your signature contains Ogham, so even without looking at your contributions past this thread, it's not a stretch to guess that you're probably Irish, and there's a common misconception that Ireland is part of the UK. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 14:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

For as highly educated an editor as Skyerise is that certainly seems like a stretch of GooFY (as in the above discussion, not me saying that to you, to be clear) proportions. Also, if anyone is going to be able to recognize Ogham as Irish while being a linguist and think “Ah, UK” then that’s certainly a leap. Though I expect to hear about how they meant Northern Ireland when they said UK, soon. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair point, there's a lot(I'd say too much) benefit of the doubt being given to Skyerise in this thread, but that in particular made sense to me as an outside observer. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 14:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Normally I consider "dredging up every bad thing an editor has ever done" at ANI an anti-pattern, but given that Skyerise has made a 3rd unblock request and there are people above challenging whether this was a good block or not. One salty statement is ultimately not that big of a deal, even if we grant it was truly meant in anger. The question is overall, is Skyerise collaborative or not. I haven't interacted with them that much, but one incident in the recent-ish past did not impress me, where they edited at high velocity to FAITACCOMPLI some article moves to new titles despite requests to slow down. (Scrolled off their talk page, but see [19] and User_talk:SnowFire#Move_warring) Basically they did BOLD article moves, which is potentially okay, but then absolutely refused to back down and reverted a revert (move warring) to keep the articles at the preferred new titles (diff, where they bizarrely accuse me of move-warring for simply restoring the status quo). In collaboration, they were incredibly rude - essentially saying "Sorry you're wrong, but you're wrong," despite talking to literally the person who wrote the section they were quoting yet drawing a different meaning from it. They also displayed a mentality of Wikipedia being about wins and losses, writing "You're gonna lose this one. But by all means, tilt at windmills.". This is completely wrong - they needed to actually defend their favored title on the merits, not brag about how they're the winner and I'm the loser. (Note: Skyerise did not in fact win this one, the page was locked from moves, and when formal RMs were eventually filed they didn't move to Skyerise's preferred titles.). I don't want to over-focus on the merits here - Skyerise is perfectly welcome to have different opinions on titling (although they didn't bother to really display any sources, and I had to be the one digging them up myself -see Talk:Apocalypse_of_Paul#Article_title:_Apoc_Paul_vs._Visio_Pauli, including the delightful "I don't think so. Let's let the rabble decide." as a riposte to the work I put in in good faith assembling what the sources said - "I don't think so" is not very convincing IMO), but they turned what could have been a polite discussion of the merits on the talk page into a needlessly stressful affair of trying to restore a status quo against aggressive moves backed by reverts. That's not good for a collaborative project. That's a reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt above. SnowFire (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)