User talk:Davidbena/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Canvassing at Silwan

You are in clear breach of WP:CANVASS and in particular, the section Inappropriate notification Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Idk if this was the last word on your tban. If it was, it seems you are in breach of that, too.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like your days in this topic area are done, David. I'm a little stunned, tbh, at the flagrant nature of the violation. Contacting only like-minded editors? Contacting anyone en masse? Perplexing, truly. El_C 19:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C:. If I request a comment, without telling a person what he or she should actually say, is that canvassing? If so, I was unaware of that. I am giving an individual the complete freedom to make his or her choice, without telling them what to do. Besides, we're talking here about a historical/biblical site with absolutely nothing to do with the I/P conflict.Davidbena (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, David, if you want me to do you a favour and sanction you directly, I can help you with that. If you'd rather go through the noticeboard complaint gauntlet that your opponents are almost certain to file and are almost certain to preserve in, I'm okay with that, as well. But if you were to choose the former, I'd need to know what previously-rescinded sanctions I'd be reinstating, so I know what to write in the log. Because I'm not that familiar with your editing history, so I'm a bit in the dark there. El_C 19:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If I have been guilty of canvassing, I'm sorry and I will not repeat it. If you wish to punish me for that, I will be content with a one-month ban from editing anything on Wikipedia. I think that I have learnt my lesson and will not repeat it. I honestly thought that the proscription of canvassing referred to when I ask someone what he or she should write.Davidbena (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave you to it, then, David. El_C 20:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

David, you don't have to tell editors what to write in order for it to be canvassing. The most common type of canvassing is to preferentially notify those editors who you think are likely to support your own view. Whenever you individually notify a bunch of editors, your choice of editors is going to be scritinised for signs of bias and getting into trouble will be very easy. So it is best to not do that at all. Instead post a neutral message on all the relevant noticeboards. Zero^talk 03:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. I honestly did not know that, but now that I know it, I will not do that again. Thanks, Zero0000. ----- Davidbena (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You did not reply above when I asked you about the tban, this one. When I asked you before whether you were tbanned you said "I am permitted to make edits on all Wikipedia pages. And, it is without question that Wikipedia articles ought to be based on reliable, non-POV sources.". So what is the situation?Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I reiterate, I am free to make edits on all Wikipedia pages, including those with the I/P tag, and I can assure you that I have not breached any imposed topic ban. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the tban I have mentioned in force or not? Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, I have not breached any imposed topic ban. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Then it is your position that your editing and participation in formal discussions at the City of David article and now in formal discussion about a merge at the Silwan article (where in addition you improperly canvassed other users)does not breach the tban? Is that right? Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

As an editor who has been active on promoting accurate coverage of biblical sites on Wikipedia, among other subjects of universal interest, and seeing that the article King's Garden (Jerusalem) is one of those important biblical sites, with a viable and notable history of its own, I strongly opposed any merger with Silwan, for the reasons given in the Merge Request. My mistake was to seek a broader feedback from other editors about either the necessity of a merge, or else its redundancy and inessentiality, which I have since rescinded. It is important to recognize one's mistakes and to move forward. And if you happen to be wondering, let me say for the record that I respect all peoples who live in this country and I have no wish whatsoever to bring politics into my edits, as I am fully aware that all peoples, nations and ethnicities (whether Jew, Muslim or Christian) have their special place and role in this society.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I can jog your memory Canvassing clearly explained to you and you promising not to do it again and there have been other instances since. And in the matter of City of David (and the indirectly connected Silwan/King's Garden) it is hard to imagine a more indicated case where "...pre-modern Levantine history and modern Levantine politics are inextricably linked" or "geographical features of the Levant (but not geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute)" is not applicable (the quotes are from the tban close). I do admit that I accepted your response that you were allowed to edit anywhere as meaning there was no tban in place, my fault for failing to check that until just recently.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess you can say that what misled me was the editor's words: "While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view." (I think that I actually kept everything quite neutral). Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution" I think is actually quite clear. I may even agree with you on the particular dispute of that merge request, as an uninvolved editor. But it does not change the fact that you have had WP:CANVAS explained to you, and yet you very much ignored the rule and clearly did not read the policy closely before making those notifications. They were absolutely "partisan in distribution" and not "limited". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, Well, to that I say, just as I said elsewhere, the word "non-partisan" is subject to interpretation. I have often disagreed with fellow editor Arminden, whom I notified about the Merge Request. Does this still make us "partisans"? Are we requested to send off notifications to random people whom we have never communicated with? Please explain. With others whom I contacted, such as User:Newmila, I have had no contact at all, to the best of my knowledge. Yet, the only reason why I contacted her was that I felt that she might have some basic understanding about historical/biblical sites needed to render a judicious decision. Shouldn't we endeavor to contact people who have a basic understanding about the subject matter in question? You see, the matter was not fully clear to me. I think that to solve future issues with canvassing, a short format or style of notification should be drafted and given on Wikipedia:Canvassing, as well as a set number determined that is not to be exceeded when notifying others.Davidbena (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue is whether a reasonable person would believe that the users you have pinged would or would likely not side with you on the issue at hand. From my reading of those editors, they likely would. That's the substance of the relevant passage at WP:CANVAS. I think the guidelines there are actually extremely clear, and even provide a set of clear and policy-compliant ways to achieve more opinions in a dispute. There's the RFC process, tagging wikiprojects, using the WP:THIRD noticeboard, and apartisan pinging criteria such as "pinging every user who edited this article in the past 100 edits." Criteria such as those you have suggested, competency about archeological topics, are prime real estate for implicit bias to creep in.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Often, I have also asked myself whether the person notified by me will agree to my own view. It's never an automatic assumption that he or she will.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You should not be the one making that call. Hence why apolitical, non-partisan criteria are typically derived from something completely and totally independent of the subject matter. Such as: edited the pertinent article in X time or Y # of the edit history. If you use subjective criteria, you may have to explain yourself and why others would view it as "apolitical, non-partisan." We aren't just going to take your word for it. Pretty much everyone (including the WP:CANVAS text) advises against this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• David, thinking it's okay to just inform like-minded editors of a dispute is both highly partisan and a major WP:CIR problem. Personally, I don't understand why Zero is coddling you above. But, whatever, if the other camp will have you, then... okay. Kinder times, perhaps? Again, myself, I feel that a violation this flagrantly partisan warrants reinstating all the bans again, but I won't press the matter further beyond noting that here. I suppose we can hope that lessons learned, as obvious as these ought to have been from the outset. El_C 10:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I've never considered David to be in the "other camp" from myself. Sure, we disagree often enough but David has always shown integrity in his disagreements. That makes him someone I can work with. Zero^talk 11:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Good luck to you all. Note that in future, I'd rather not be pinged or otherwise personally alerted to ARBPIA or ARBPIA-esque disputes unprompted. Thanks. El_C 13:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment on AN

The following is a quote from your post on AN: ... good, educational articles about biblical sites are being challenged by one editor who pushes his own POV against the accepted consensus, and if left up to his devices, he would fain expunge those articles from the Wikipedia Main Space, as I shall shortly explain. In so doing, he wishes to diminish, as it were, any sign of ancient Israel in the historical land of Palestine. This is plainly wrong, and, thank God, there are other editors who can detect this cunning and what can rightly be termed a "dishonest display of editorship." In this quote, is the "one editor" you're referring to Selfstudier? Is this what you believe is Selfstudier's motive for editing? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc:, Thanks, Callanecc. There, I was referring to statements made by Selfstudier who dismissed the academic consensus about the location of the ancient City of David (in Silwan), and threatened to push a POV that would, in effect, mislead our readership on Wikipedia about the ancient site. In fact, I warned him that this could lead to him being banned from editing articles relating to ancient history and archaeology.Davidbena (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

One of the things you are banned from doing is "questioning the motives of other editors". Please explain how you have not doing this in the quote from ANI I copied above. At this stage, it appears that you'll be blocked for a month for canvassing and wikilawyering about it. If you can't adequately explain why the quote above is not a breach of the ban it's very likely that the block will be extended. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Interjecting here, but not at AE, but that would fall under WP:BANEX ("Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution") as Davidbena was responding to a complaint about the ban lodged at an admin noticeboard. Banned individuals are allowed to attempt to defend themselves in discussions involving a potential topic ban breach.--Hippeus (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hippeus: if a user is charged with violations in a content-focused way, with diffs, it's neither "legitimate" nor "necessary" to attack the motives of the reporter. You may want to consult WP:BANEX again, to see what it actually says. Bishonen | tålk 06:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

@Callanecc:, although I was unaware of the prohibition to question another's motives, a rely to your query has been posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of nine weeks. This block is for a few somewhat separate reasons and I've broken down the block length for each of these reasons in my explanation:

• As a result of the discussion on AE I've blocked you for four weeks (one month) due to the canvassing and evasiveness in response to the concerns which were raised regarding this.
• As I mentioned above, you have breached the community-imposed ban by questioning the motives of other editors on ANI and I've blocked you for one week for doing that.
• ​In response to the concern I raised, you posted on ANI and again questioned the motives of another editor when you stated "suggests to me that that person wishes to portray a "different" aspect of history ... Other remarks made by my disputant enhance this view". For this brazen breach of the ban, which I had already warned you about and sought to discuss with you, I've blocked you for four weeks.

The statement in your post above that you were "unaware of the prohibition to question another's motives" is both absurd and concerning. It is plainly listed in the close of your August 2020 ANI appeal and the fact that you were not aware of it suggests to me that you have not taken the restrictions imposed on you seriously or sought to understand and apply their scope in your editing.

This is a block of significant length which is proportionate to the disruption you have participated in along with the brazen breaches of your community-imposed ban. Given that you have stated that you are unaware of parts of the ban, I encourage you to spend some time reviewing the ban as well as the the topic ban policy. If you have questions about its scope you can ask questions here. Even though the ban provides you an exemption you need to view that exemption very narrowly. I would also suggest that any further breaches of the ban that occur anywhere on Wikipedia are likely to be met with strong sanctions which may include a broad topic ban or extended block.

You can appeal this block using the {{unblock}} template and the guide to appealing blocks. Since this part of this block enforces a community-imposed ban and is based on a discussion of uninvolved admins, the reviewing administrator(s) may wish to take any appeal to AN or ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, I think it is really high time you start considering that a. if you continue to ask about this topic ban, you are probably indicating why the topic ban was warranted; b. you need to stop canvassing, and I know you're going to claim you're not doing that but you are; and c. you are seriously propelling yourself toward an indefinite block or community ban, with a mixture of lack of AGF, canvassing, topic ban breaches, and possibly CIR violations used as reasons. I'm serious. Let it go. Work within the parameters that are given to you. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I do take these matters seriously, but the details of many conversations I've had have been forgotten. This time, I will stop canvassing and I will no longer question the motives of another individual here, although I may, indeed, disagree with him. Disagreements are widespread on this platform. In the event of a content dispute, I will resort to the venue here that deals with such issues. Simply put, I felt very strongly about what I wrote in the ANI, and I tried to be as diplomatic about it as I could possibly be. We all make mistakes, as we all are human. I do think, however, that there is a fine line to be drawn between accusing someone of "gaming the system" and actually "questioning one's motives." It is probably best that I scale back and I will try to do just that. I accept the punitive measures taken against me, and I am ALWAYS open for correction.Davidbena (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

OK--that is good to hear. But, but...questioning motives (a violation of AGF) is simply not a useful thing to do when one is judged on one's own merit, and particularly one's own edits. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

David Welcome to Wiki, Your Patience and attitude is great.

Sorry you have been bit so hard by some of the editors. Some have abused you and clearly violated wikis rule of conduct. It is unfortunate that many who do this know better. Below is a post by a self described New Age editor with a bias against you. I verbally censured him on his talk page and you could bring his intolerant comments to an administrator for guidance on how to address his behavior. I am somewhat new also but know his stereotype is not tolerated on Wiki.

For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.

I did not self-describe as New Ager. That's WP:OR based upon my WP:OR definition of the New Age. When I wrote that definition I was a Christian fundamentalist (and also occultist, if that matters). So, as an editor of Wikipedia, I have never stated verbatim that I am a New Ager. For as long as I edited Wikipedia, I did not believe in the New Age. Read its books? Yes. Believed in it? No. I did buy into the New Age, but that was before starting to edit Wikipedia, it's a thing from many years ago. Conclusion: I did not edit Wikipedia as a New Ager.

I am neither always tolerant nor always intolerant: I behave rather as a mirror which reflects the stance of my opponents. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Davidbena:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)