User talk:Davidbena

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Asking to be unblocked

[edit]
icon
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Davidbena (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

On April 19, 2025, I was banned from editing this site (see [[1]]). I'm asking for the opportunity to help improve articles on this magnificent platform, just as I have faithfully done in the past, with only minor infractions. In fact, this last offense which caused me to be banned from the site was the first and only instance of its kind, where I erred in understanding Wikipedia's set laws and guidelines touching on "euphemisms," a mistake which can happen to almost anyone when an editor seeks to use the least offensive word in a sentence, even though Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:EUPHEMISM) explicitly state that we are to make use of the common and plain word in such cases. I happened to be unaware of this prohibition. At other times, I sought to avoid the over-use of one word (redundancy).

My other offenses on Wikipedia (for which I have been penalized in the past) had nothing to do with this current offense, and were solely related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, concerning which I have long since corrected my shortcomings.

What makes my case all the more surprising is that I only came to learn about the prohibition of using euphemisms after 15 February 2025 (when I thought it was perfectly fine to use a euphemism) (see [[2]]), but then, lo and behold, after it was made plain to me that I cannot make use of a euphemism when there is a more common word used instead (see [[3]] of 9 April 2025, and this [of same date]), I cited a quote from Maimonides (which is permitted to do) and which, he himself, made use of a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse (see [[4]]), and which brought in its wake a strong censure from the editor who filed a complaint against me. This time, what befell me was like some "freak coincidence," where any observer might easily think that I was willfully ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, when I was not. I tried to explain my actions on ANI, but failed horribly in the process. Some saw my response as only "digging-in", as if I were trying to justify my actions.

I am of the conviction that, had my disputant and I discussed this issue on the article's Talk Page, it would not have come to this. Everything would have been resolved and I would not have been banned from editing this site. Moreover, I tried the option of Third Opinion (WP:THIRD) after my edit was reverted by Fram (see [[5]]), which to my chagrin was submitted simultaneously with Fram's ANI against me. Everything was put on hold, until my verdict came down.

The closing Administrator, with all due respect, took issue with me because of what he saw implied initially in that article, viz., that Jews, who view the Mosaic Law as being immutable, "might be exempt from international laws regarding rape," although, in truth, these were not my exact words, but rather, I had only endeavored to show the two divergent sides of the coin from a historical perspective, and that in the same paragraph of the article I explicitly mentioned that International laws outlaw rape in war (see [[6]]). Both viewpoints were equally mentioned and sourced, but the former view seemed to have caught his attention. Contrary to those who accused me of this, my personal viewpoint was never interjected here and there was never any original research.

I love contributing to Wikipedia. It is, therefore, a real shock to my system to be banned from editing Wikipedia. Overall, my contributions to Wikipedia have been good and positive. I call your attention to a number of Good Articles made by me (e.g. Jewish astrology and Mosaic of Rehob) and a number of Did You Knows (e.g. [(leather)], [war], [Hebrew MS. 133], etc., etc.), in addition to a wide range of articles written about the Flora of Israel/Palestine, as well as on other pertinent topics, especially Historical geography. These articles are replete with photographs submitted by me. I have also translated from Hebrew into English important sections belonging to other articles, such as the "Selected excerpts" in Copper Scroll.

Irrespective of the achievements which may have been made by me, I am no less or no more human than anyone else here; a man with faults. Yet, I am always willing to correct them.

I ask to be brought back into the fold of Wikipedia editors, after having served the punishment determined for me. If, for any reason, I am denied the opportunity to edit on this platform anymore, I wish to thank Wikipedia for the time that was given to me to edit, during which time we produced invaluable encyclopedic material. Davidbena (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi David. I saw this come across my watchlist and I thought I'd share some thoughts. Since this is a community ban, your appeal will need to go to the administrators' noticeboard for community review. I can tell you—and I'm usually a pretty good judge of these things—it is unlikely to succeed as you've written it. That would, frankly, sadden me: You have a long history of constructive contributions to this project, and this ban struck me as very avoidable, and an unban seems very possible here. But one of the main things the community usually wants ot hear in an unban request is that the editor understands why they were banned. And I think there is still some disconnect in that regard. Frankly I appreciate your candor in not falsely apologizing, but I think you somewhat misunderstand what had your peers so upset. So I'd like to try to clear that up.

First off, in some ways the euphemism question is a bit of a red herring. As I said in closing the thread, if that had been the only issue, there would have been no consensus to ban, because accidentally framing a minority POV in wikivoice is a mistake that people make innocently. What troubled other editors, rather, is that when it was explained to you that your repetition of sources' euphemisms for rape was problematic, you did not seem to understand. Colin's essay WP:OUROWNWORDS may be of some help in understanding the issue there. When we use opinionated sources—which the works of Maimonides definitely are—it's especially important that we not repeat their biases as Wikipedia's own. For instance, an anti-abortion publication might publish reliable reporting on an abortion controversy, but if it uses words like "baby" for a fetus or "killer" for an abortion provider, we would not use those words in the encyclopedia's own voice, even when citing that source.

This is a subtle thing, but also something that most editors regard as an important core competence of a content writer, which I think is what made many alarmed at your pushback when others tried to explain it to you. Rather than relitigating that now, now would be a good time to approach this more responsively: If there's still something you don't understand about how we do and don't paraphrase opinionated sources, I know there is no shortage of experienced Wikipedians who'd be willing to answer your questions in that regard.

The more important issue, though, in my view as closer—and by that I mean, in my assessment of what the community felt, not just speaking for my own views—was the statement that Jews might be exempt from international law regarding rape as a weapon of war. Here too I fear you're misunderstanding what people objected to. You are correct that you showed both sides of that question. But the issue was not one of WP:DUE but rather one of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The source you cited did not say anything about international laws on rape as a weapon of war (something that was not internationally illegal at the time the source was written, if I'm not mistaken), but rather made a general point, and indeed didn't say anything specifically about Jewish law, just offering a general observation that national and international laws sometimes conflict. So rather than describe two well-sourced POVs on the interplay of religious and international law, you said that the international laws exist, and then said it is an open question "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", without any citation to support the premise that this is in fact an open question.

So here too I would encourage you to talk to some of the other veteran editors you know well. It is possible you need to refamiliarize yourself with how SYNTH works, and with what an editor can and cannot say in the absence of sources directly on-point. If that issue can't be resolved, I doubt the community will be interested in an unban, because we need to be able to trust that content editors add to articles will be sourced, and will be verified by the sources it cites.

I know it's not pleasant to read criticisms like this, but I'm hoping you'll take this under advisement. Again, you've done a lot of good for Wikipedia, and I think there's a path forward here. But you have to meet the community halfway... well more than halfway, actually. There's a gap between how you think articles should be written and how the community does, and that needs to be resolved. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Your critique has been well-received by me, and, only now, am I beginning to understand the issues at hand. I fully agree with your assessment that when faced with "opinionated sources," we as Wikipedians should try and display the most non-biased POVs as possible, and such that are fitting an encyclopedia of Wikipedia's standing. Let me internalize everything. Once I feel that I have fully grasped this issue, are you saying to submit an appeal on the administrators' noticeboard for community review?Davidbena (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be the appropriate venue. The reviewing admin can copy an appeal there once you're ready. Or I can do it if you ping me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I am pasting here my appeal request, which I am asking you to post for me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Thanks>
Over the past six-months, I have had the opportunity to reflect on my actions and on what caused my recent ban from the site (see [7]), and now, after having been told the incongruities that warranted this ban, I have directed my mind to correct those errors and, hopefully, never to repeat them. I feel that I have come a long way, and by the good graces of some editors here who were willing to counsel me, I have gone over again the guidelines for good journalism, and what is expected of editors here on Wikipedia.
My major mistake was in not recognizing that even when citing a reputable source such as Maimonides, we as editors are to avoid repeating what might be construed by others as another author's bias, or an "opinionated source", since Wikipedia asks of us to detach ourselves from the biases of any one particular source, whether it be in the form of semantics used by that author, or in his or her choice of words (e.g. euphemisms), etc., and to take rather a "neutral-stance," and to present the most plain-meaning of a word in question to our readers, without interdiction. Wikipedia is a "knowledge-based" encyclopedia, which warrants us as editors to be disconnected from certain biases. In my case, I should have simply called a spade a spade, without trying to mitigate the meaning of a distasteful act or word, or taking at face-value the biases of a Medieval author.
The proscription of WP:SYNTH is plain to me, and, I, at all times, seek to avoid its use. We cannot extrapolate that simply because one source speaks about a certain fact, that another unrelated source might somehow be connected to that same fact. If I recall correctly, the reference used to suggest "international law" coming in conflict with a particular law (see [8]) was stated by me only in general terms, without specificity. Even so, we later came to reject that edit for a more neutral one, one that does no pit international law up against a biblical law, which would have the immediate tendency of suggesting a bias in favor of the biblical laws. I should not have intimated such a thing, as our job here is NOT to take sides!Davidbena (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. All the best. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Is it too late for me to explain to the Administrators what I meant by saying "minor infractions"? What I meant by these words is that, although what I did was definitely wrong, the majority of these infractions were done because of some misunderstanding by me in the application of my topic ban, and, in the final analysis, judges who adjudicated my cases did not see that these infractions warranted a permanent ban. Of course, this is not to say that what I did was right, as it definitely was not right. Moreover, I never repeated those same errors.Davidbena (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copied over. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]