Jump to content

User talk:Benevolent human

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benevolent human (talk | contribs) at 13:35, 16 June 2021 (→Previous accounts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome!

Hi Benevolent human, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from Ilhan Omar talk page

Hi! I appreciate the fact that you generally choose your words carefully and maintain a high level of respect and civility even during heated debates. In light of that, I was disappointed that you twice repeated "pattern of behavior" in reference to Ilhan Omar. She deserves the same respectful language that you use about Wikipedia editors you disagree with. In our culture, word choices for women politicians are often less respectful than for male politicians. (Minor example: President Biden is typically called "President Biden" whereas Vice-President Harris is frequently called "Kamala" and almost never "Vice-President Harris"; and in earlier elections it was Trump, Pence, Obama, and Biden -- but Hillary.) NightHeron (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron:, thank you for reaching out to me about this, it shows that you're trusting me to consider your thoughts carefully and I really appreciate that. Don't worry, I don't have any qualms with Omar's gender, only with her choices. From what I can tell, the situation in Gaza is that a) the Hamas government has a goal of conquering Israel and killing everyone who is Jewish in that region, and b) in order to accomplish that, Hamas has been putting in place government incentives for women to have many, many children so they can "create a larger army" [1]. As a result, Gaza is overcrowded with children, but I still don't see any evidence that the Israeli military is trying to kill kids. What does seem to be happening is that Hamas is setting up their rocket launchers near schools and such in an effort to use these children as human shields. So by overlooking this situation, as well as through her earlier statements about American Jews, Omar doesn't really portray herself in a good light in my view. That's the source of my wariness towards her that you've detected. (Note that, by condemning Omar and Hamas, I am not necessarily saying that I agree with everything Israel has ever done; you can see evil within both groups because both groups are fundamentally the same.) That said, I see how the word "behavior" has a connotation of suggesting that she's a child, and I can avoid that word in the future. Would something like "pattern of statements" or "pattern of incidents" land better with you? Benevolent human (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "pattern of statements" is a respectful wording. When people express outrage about human rights violations, they frequently make emotional rather than rational word choices. In the old days this was usually done in private with friends, but now it's often on social media. In our "cancel culture" both the right and the left can easily take such statements out of context and blow them out of proportion in order to attack their political enemies. In most cases such incidents are not worthy of coverage on Wikipedia. I won't reply directly to what you say about the killing of children in Gaza, which is similar to the Israeli government's explanation. Just let me mention my own view of the general conflict. Israel has been responsible for systematic, large-scale violations of Palestinians' rights since the expulsion of many Palestinians from their homeland in the 1940s. Yet I don't see Israel as historically unique in this respect, and I don't find the justification for displacing Palestinians (that the region was the Biblical homeland of Jews in ancient times) to be any worse than the justification the US gave for barbarous treatment of the indigenous population ("manifest destiny" and the racist belief that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"), or the justification the Spanish gave for doing likewise in South and Central America (bringing Christianity and "civilization"), or the justification South Africa gave for apartheid (white supremacy), or the justification Europeans gave for colonizing Africa (again bringing Christianity and "civilization"), etc. And I know that Israelis have some great scientific and other achievements to their credit (not just the best feta). NightHeron (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're largely on the same page from a moral values standpoint. It's wrong to expel people form their homes. I would need to do a lot more reading before I can have an opinion that I can be certain of on the 1948 Palestinian exodus. My current views, which I'm not sure are correct, are that a lot of the people who left the region weren't expelled (although, like you said, a lot _were_), and part of reason the refugees weren't let in after the war is that the Palestinians were using scary genocidal rhetoric. It's also helpful to take the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries as part of that context - the majority of Israelis alive today are descended from Jews that weren't in Israel in 1948, but left or were expelled from other Middle Eastern countries after. Does that mean they're not responsible for what might have happened in 1948? I'm not sure. But like I said, I would need to read a lot more about the 1948 exodus before I could be confident about what happened back then. Anyway, it sounds like although we disagree on facts, we agree on values, which is more important. Benevolent human (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You started two RfCs in less than 2 weeks in violation of ARBPIA. The first time the violation was pointed out in the closing summary. The second time you obviously knew about the ARBPIA restriction, which is stated in the same section 5.B.1 that you linked to in your RfC statement: This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Repeated violation of restrictions could be regarded as disruptive and result in sanctions. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. You're correct that the exception doesn't apply, that's my mistake. I don't think ARBPIA applies for the reasons I went into earlier, but I'll ask for a second opinion on ANI. Benevolent human (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of editors, including the closing editor of your first RfC, is that ARBPIA does apply. You seemed to concede this by citing ARBPIA in your statement of the second RfC. There's no reason to discuss ARBPIA at ANI, which is mainly for editor-conduct issues. I have no intention of asking for sanctions against you, since it would be wrong to sanction an inexperienced editor for one (or two) mistakes. NightHeron (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron:, I will take your advice not to post on ANI! I asked at Teahouse instead. Benevolent human (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, reading the second "warning" at the top of Talk:Ilhan Omar, it seems clear that ARBPIA applies to material in the article relating to Omar's statements on Israel. NightHeron (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure if I agree, but as I am not extended confirmed, the point is moot. Anyway, thanks for bringing this potential issue to my attention. Benevolent human (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HI Benevolent human, is this the conversation that explains your addressing the RfC procedural issues? It seems like NightHeron has pointed out again that you shouldn't be opening RfC's related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Is there conversation elsewhere where editors agree you have standing to open an RfC on the subject? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers:, yep, you found it, welcome to my talk page! In any case, to summarize, NightHeron said I needed 500 edits to open that RfC. Although I disagreed with the reasoning, I now have 500 edits, so there's no argument. Hurray! Benevolent human (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! I saw "I am not extended confirmed" above and am now guessing you probably meant "I am now extended confirmed". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sorry for the typo. Benevolent human (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a second to review edits suggested by bots before applying them

Hi, I saw that you recently reverted an edit by made by a bot which was removing junk added by an IP editor. Later, your revert was re-reverted (so that junk added by IP editor was removed). Every time you carry out an edit suggested by a bot, please take a second to actually validate that your edit is reasonable. Thank you, Anton.bersh (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Anton.bersh:, I thought I was removing that sentence, not adding it back in. Thanks for the tip. Benevolent human (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert + warning at List of Nigerians

I honestly don't know how the new user can be expected to understand why you call their addition at List of Nigerians "not constructive"; it was obviously done in good faith. Please explain where needed, both in edit summary and in your note on their page, instead of treating the user like a vandal by posting a templated warning with Twinkle. Be benevolent. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:, is this the edit you mean? [2] If so, I think you're right that I erred - I saw them removing formatting, but I think your interpretation is correct. Will try to do better. Benevolent human (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, that's the one — did you revert more than one edit at List of Nigerians..? Since they didn't understand, they reasonably just re-added the musician they admire, while fixing the formatting. I hope they've read my explanation now. (IPs don't always find their own talkpage, but one can hope.) Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
That was my only edit to that page. I agree with you, sorry for my mistake. Benevolent human (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:CANVASSING

Your selective notifications for the RfC at Talk:Ilhan Omar are a violation of WP:Canvassing. Please read this policy carefully and follow it exactly in the future. Any further examples of selective notification will be reported to admins for consideration of sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken:, thanks for the notice. My reading was it was a guideline, and in this specific situation, there was already a fairly biased set of editors looking at the RfC and this was balancing it out. Does that make sense? Benevolent human (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a guideline, but it's one that violating can get you blocked. And, no, it does not make sense. Your personal disagreement with the comments of other editors does not mean you get to try to bring in editors you think will agree with your position. My own method to avoid canvassing is to place a neutral pointer (on the order of "A discussion which may be of interest to you can be found here", with a link) on the talk pages of all of the WikiProjects listed on article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken:, understood. So if I were to list at a roughly equal number of articles frequented by point with one type of bias, and articles frequented by people with the other type of bias, then we should be kosher? Benevolent human (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that requires you to be the one who determines what is "biased" and in which direction - it's bad to think of it that way. Since this is an ARBPIA matter, you might leave a pointer on the talk pages of all articles with an ARBPIA notice on them, for instance, which takes your own biases out of the equation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you very much! Benevolent human (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: For a neutral pointer, I have been using { Rfc notice }, is that okay? Benevolent human (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I just roll my own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revising talk page comments

WP:TALK#REVISE: you may revise your own talk page comments, So long as no one has yet responded to your comment. Your RfC wording has been responded to and cannot be modified. Otherwise, all of those responses to it make no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: thank you for informing me of this policy! Benevolent human (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might be misunderstanding the purpose of EC-restriction

I don't see why you responded to my comment at ArbCom by referring me to a comment by TrueQuantum saying that they were insulted that I have no right to comment because they had fewer than 500 edits. The purpose of extended-confirmed restrictions is not to insult anyone or to imply that opinions of new users are less valid than opinions of experienced users. Rather EC-restricted pages or topics are ones that are highly contentious and have at times been the targets of disruption. The main purpose is to prevent attempts to skew the discussion through off-wiki canvassing, sock-puppets, sudden appearance of special-purpose accounts and IPs who edit only on one topic, and other efforts to subvert the process. Another possible reason for EC-restrictions is that relatively inexperienced editors often do not understand certain Wikipedia policies and proceed to violate them. This isn't usually a big deal if they're editing pages that are not very controversial, like the page about their hometown or favorite football team. But if they enter a contentious area and stubbornly insist that they're right long after it's clear that the consensus of editors is against them, that causes a time sink for other editors and quite often sanctions against the new editor. NightHeron (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: The issue is that we never formed a consensus on the issue. No RfCs were allowed to complete. Benevolent human (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If by "the issue" you mean the issue at ArbCom (namely, applicability of ARBPIA), then there certainly was a consensus. Noone else besides you argued that ARBPIA does not apply. A consensus doesn't always require an RfC. If "the issue" refers to the subject of your 3 RfCs, all the recent discussions and RfCs have resulted in a consensus against including allegations of anti-semitism in the lead of Ilhan Omar. There's currently a request out to close the latest RfC, seeing as only 2 other editors have supported your proposal and 17 have opposed it. NightHeron (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: Yes, I see the RfC is closed now. I think one of us (quite possibly me) is misunderstanding the circumstances under which one can/should appeal to ArbCom for clarifications on their decisions. I guess we'll find out soon. Benevolent human (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Benevolent human. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Previous accounts

Did you edit as 108.45.91.166? Did you have a registered account before then? TFD (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: No to both. Benevolent human (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benevolent_human&oldid=1028866742"