User talk:Zoboili

Welcome!

Hello, Zoboili, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is inappropriate to accuse me of.

It is not a disruption to make a suggestion. It is also not a disruption or "making a point" to call out a user for acting in bad faith.

"The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information."

My post was a suggestion with verifiable information to back it up. Deleting it, as MrOllie did, completely goes against the principles of Wikipedia. They deleted it because apparently it has been permanently decided that the article's name shall never be changed; despite there not being any sources for these decisions. Zoboili (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that requiring sources is vandalism? You are out of line. Zoboili (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self confidence can be useful but it would be better to wait until you have some experience with how Wikipedia works before advising others. See WP:SPA. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To make such an inference to my intentions is inappropriate and rude. Zoboili (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive at minimum. Your whole shtick is disruptive. The world treats genital cutting of the penis different than cutting of the vulva. So Wikipedia does too. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." You and EvergreenFir are corrupt, biased users. Zoboili (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are a corrupt moderator. Zoboili (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Zoboili (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was falsely banned under the incorrect assertion of "vandalism" for [beginning a discussion over the name of the article "Circumcision"]. My suggesiton on the talk page was not made in bad faith, I am not a sock puppet account, and I was adhering to Wikipedia's rules. My suggestion was outright deleted from the Talk page and the given reason was to "check the FAQ" for "Circumcision" so I did. The "FAQ" discusses how the title of the Article shall not be changed due to "consensus" but there are no citations, no sources to this "consensus". I added ^{[citation needed]} tags to FAQ because as I have known; Wikipedia requires citations. This page is being used as the arbiter to all discussions on this matter, so why is it not cited? Wikipedia states on the Circumcision talk page "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." On the Vandalism Article "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." I am appealing this ban from EvergreenFir because I believe they and MrOllie are acting in bad faith; and, that the only "violation" I have made here is acting and speaking in a way they simply disagree with.

Decline reason:

Per below. While I agree that it might be a good idea to link to any archived discussions from statements in a FAQ on such a contentious matter, we generally do not use the {{fact}} tag outside of article space, and doing it there when there's no indication you did something normal and human like, I don't know, go on the talk page and ask first just makes you a poster child for NOTHERE. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Why do I have to ask for permission to edit a page? Wikipedia gave me the right as a user. Citations are needed. My original talk page discussion was not in violation of any rules and neither was my editing of the FAQ.

Comment - you were blocked because you were disruptively trying to make a point. Had you actually engaged in a good faith discussion you'd may have learned that I don't disagree with you that routine infant circumcision is a human rights violation, that female genital mutilation should be titled female genital cutting, and that the dialogue around this topic is frought with Western bias. But I'd also have said that as an encyclopedia, we must reflect what reliable sources say and as a result we reflect the bias and hegemony on this topic. But your purpose wasn't to learn or help. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "doing a good" job to be correctly called out on acting in bad faith?

My initial post on the talk page was made in good faith, it was to spur discussion and I provided reasons as well as a cited reason to potentially change the structure of the article. The article is protected and Iw as unable to make the edits directly, so I started a discussion.

MrOllie deleted my legitimate discussion from the talk page because they do not like that I brought it up. This is frustrating because their action was clearly done out of personal reasoning, as their cited FAQ page reasoning is not a legitimate dismissal. It has no direct citations that refer to the claims made. Decisions over articles that refer to a poll of some kind should have a reference to that poll. Even if just referring colloquial sentiment, why should there not be some reference or explanation for the claim? I understand that there is a "consensus" on the terminology, can this never be questioned? And, of course I understand that Genital Mutilation in the form of unnecessary, non-medical Male Circumcision is fundamentally still different from many forms of Female Genital Mutilation including Female Circumcision. Again, though, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." I have not violated the rules of Wikipedia, you merely have made an arbitrary decision based off your own personal frustration with my language and actions. YOU and MrOllie could have simply commented on and amended my talk discussion. To delete them under false pretenses is improper administration of the site and goes against the very purpose of it, though. Zoboili (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you decided to edit war on the FAQ? Your initial post was a proclamation of your viewpoint and a source about HIV transmission. When reverted, you railed about it instead of asking why or looking into the previous conversation (which I suggested you do). You didn't stop to ask why the artcles on vulva and penis cutting are diffent (though I mentioned it). You just edit warred and yelled. That's not good faith and that's not constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not just me stating my viewpoint. While it did not include citations to the claims, it could be amended to. Circumcision is an uncommon practice around the World, it is sometimes medically recommended, such as in cases of Phimosis, as I referenced. It did gain significant popularity in the United States in particular due to the propaganda of a religious fanatic whose primary reasoning was akin to punishment through genital mutilation.

Why do I not have the right to edit the FAQ? Why is it that I started an edit war and not MrOllie? If you're saying I've done this then they also have. My edit was made in good faith and is a completely legitimate addition to that page.

I believe that the FAQ page should give citations to the claims as it is being used as a law of sorts. I edited the uncited references requesting that they were, that is not in violation of any rule or guideline. Just because my account is new and you and MrOllie disagree with my behavior does not mean it is an infraction. Wikipedia states that even if a talk discussion is created that willfully goes against the consensus, it is not vandalism. What justification is there then for removing my discussion and banning me for vandalism? I did read the supplied reason for my discussion being revised and removed and I disagreed and still do. I do not believe that saying "read the FAQ" is a sufficient dismissal because I believe that the FAQ is lacking proper authority. Perhaps I could have wrote my initial talk discussion better, with citations; but I have not vandalized any pages or engaged in an edit war. I respect what you do but I believe this was all an emotional disagreement. Zoboili (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was falsely banned under the incorrect assertion of "vandalism" for [beginning a discussion over the name of the article "Circumcision"]. My suggesiton on the talk page was not made in bad faith, I am not a sock puppet account, and I was adhering to Wikipedia's rules. My suggestion was outright deleted from the Talk page and the given reason was to "check the FAQ" for "Circumcision" so I did. The "FAQ" discusses how the title of the Article shall not be changed due to "consensus" but there are no citations, no sources to this "consensus". I added ^{[citation needed]} tags to FAQ because as I have known; Wikipedia requires citations. This page is being used as the arbiter to all discussions on this matter, so why is it not cited? Wikipedia states on the Circumcision talk page "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." On the Vandalism Article "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." I am appealing this ban from EvergreenFir because I believe they and MrOllie are acting in bad faith; and, that the only "violation" I have made here is acting and speaking in a way they simply disagree with.

My initial post on the talk page was made in good faith, it was to spur discussion and I provided reasons as well as a cited reason to potentially change the structure of the article. The article is protected and Iw as unable to make the edits directly, so I started a discussion. MrOllie deleted my legitimate discussion from the talk page because they do not like that I brought it up. This is frustrating because their action was clearly done out of personal reasoning, as their cited FAQ page reasoning is not a legitimate dismissal. It has no direct citations that refer to the claims made. Decisions over articles that refer to a poll of some kind should have a reference to that poll. Even if just referring colloquial sentiment, why should there not be some reference or explanation for the claim? I understand that there is a "consensus" on the terminology, can this never be questioned? And, of course I understand that Genital Mutilation in the form of unnecessary, non-medical Male Circumcision is fundamentally still different from many forms of Female Genital Mutilation including Female Circumcision. Again, though, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." I have not violated the rules of Wikipedia, EvergreenFir made an arbitrary decision based off their own personal frustration with my language and actions EvergreenFir and MrOllie could have simply commented on and amended my talk discussion. To delete them under false pretenses is improper administration of the site and goes against the very purpose of it, though.

It was not just me stating my viewpoint. While it did not include citations to the claims, it could be amended to. Circumcision is an uncommon practice around the World, it is sometimes medically recommended, such as in cases of Phimosis, as I referenced. It did gain significant popularity in the United States in particular due to the propaganda of a religious fanatic whose primary reasoning was akin to punishment through genital mutilation.

Why do I not have the right to edit the FAQ? Why is it that I started an edit war and not MrOllie? If you're saying I've done this then they also have. My edit was made in good faith and is a completely legitimate addition to that page.

I believe that the FAQ page should give citations to the claims as it is being used as a law of sorts. I edited the uncited references requesting that they were, that is not in violation of any rule or guideline. Just because my account is new and EvergreenFir and MrOllie disagree with my behavior does not mean it is an infraction. Wikipedia states that even if a talk discussion is created that willfully goes against the consensus, it is not vandalism. What justification is there then for removing my discussion and banning me for vandalism? I did read the supplied reason for my discussion being revised and removed and I disagreed and still do. I do not believe that saying "read the FAQ" is a sufficient dismissal because I believe that the FAQ is lacking proper authority. Perhaps I could have wrote my initial talk discussion better, with citations; but I have not vandalized any pages or engaged in an edit war.

Decline reason:

Decline as WP:TLDR. Please keep requests to a short paragraph or two instead of a wall of text. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was falsely banned under the incorrect assertion of "vandalism" for [beginning a discussion over the name of the article "Circumcision"]. My suggesiton on the talk page was not made in bad faith, I am not a sock puppet account, and I was adhering to Wikipedia's rules. My suggestion was outright deleted from the Talk page and the given reason was to "check the FAQ" for "Circumcision" so I did. The "FAQ" discusses how the title of the Article shall not be changed due to "consensus" but there are no citations, no sources to this "consensus". I added ^{[citation needed]} tags to FAQ because as I have known; Wikipedia requires citations. This page is being used as the arbiter to all discussions on this matter, so why is it not cited? Wikipedia states on the Circumcision talk page "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." On the Vandalism Article "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." I am appealing this ban from EvergreenFir because I believe they and MrOllie are acting in bad faith; and, that the only "violation" I have made here is acting and speaking in a way they simply disagree with.

Decline reason:

You are confused. Talk pages are different from article pages. WP:CITE only applies to article space. As you have demonstrated you don't understand how Wikipedia works and as your edits were disruptive, I can't lift the block at this time. Yamla (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Here, you said, "I completely disagree with every action that has been taken against me and the reasoning". If you ever wish to be unblocked, you need to demonstrate that you understand why your edits were inappropriate and convince us you won't repeat them. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:How? Do you understand where I'm coming from at all? I can see how undoing the removals on the FAQ talk page could be seen as an "edit war" but I didn't initiate it. If I was wrong about it being NECESSARY for that type of page to have citations, then I apologize; ultimately it was still just a suggestion though as I did not introduce citations. I think I should be given a second chance because as you said; I don't know exactly how all of this works. I couldn't edit the main article so I made a suggestion. I feel that it was unfairly removed. Aside from the potential edit war I truly do not understand what I did wrong. The guidelines clearly state that it is okay to create discussions that are contrary to the consensus and even contentious, if they're in good faith, which everything I did was. I do not understand how these actions could be argued as being disruptive considering the website condones them. It says that you can make controversial suggestions on talk pages. As I linked to also, there is a guideline against removing user posts on talk pages without their approval. I was making a suggestion in good faith, felt personally attacked, and attempted to undo the actions another user took against me. I thought that Wikipedia is exactly the kind of platform that allows for discussion when it comes to changing things. Again, I ask if it can be set to a specific time, an infinite ban for this seems like a huge overstep. I'm trying to have an honest conversation about this because I'm being honest and I do not want to be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoboili (talk • contribs)

You need to convince us you understand why your edits were inappropriate. You continue to indicate you think your edits were appropriate. As this discussion is just going around in circles, I won't respond further. However, you have an open unblock request and another admin will review it shortly. WP:GAB may also be helpful for you to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request with a meaningful chance of success. --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply trying to get a clear explanation as to what exactly was inappropriate so I can understand because as I said I do not. I feel like the only reason this conversation is going in circles is because none of my questions have been answered, you're only giving me the same response with no elaboration. I feel like you're perhaps taking my statements too literally or, are so opposed to the idea of removing the ban that you aren't giving me a fair shot at conversation here. Please, I genuinely am wanting to know what about what I did is so inappropriate. As users do we have no recourse in a situation like mine? Did the user who removed my talk page discussion not act in bad faith? Was it reverting the removals on the FAQ? Everything I did was a legitimate action, right? Zoboili (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Can you please discuss this with me? I genuinely want to understand and I was not trying to vandalize or be disruptive. I've read the linked articles and I can understand how my actions came off as contentious and I want it to be known that I truly was not acting with malicious intent. I promise I will not make aggressive edits as I did without forming a consensus on the idea of change before hand. I felt personally attacked by the user that removed my talk page post and I could have formatted and presented my original discussion post in a better way. I will not engage in edit wars regardless of whether or not they were initiated by someone else towards me. I can instead seek 3rd party opinions and attempt to resolve any seemingly personal conflicts or disagreements on what edits are necessary. I love this website and I do want to be able to be a part of it. Please consider at the very least reducing my ban to some sort of time frame. I understand that I made mistakes. Zoboili (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not believe that would be productive, not after I've pointed you to the relevant policies and guidelines, which you've clearly ignored. Please don't ping me again. Another admin will review your open unblock request and please remember, I'm not the blocking admin in this case. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your edits and I appreciate the text you give above. Unblock requests can take time to complete because Wikipedia's administrators are volunteers, and thus we assess these requests when we have time to look at them. Please answer the questions below to help administrators determine your understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines:

Please outline specifically why it was inappropriate to add citation needed tags to Talk:Circumcision/FAQ
How you would have approached the conversation at Talk:Circumcision differently?
If unblocked, what articles would you like to edit?

Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for responding. I totally understand and have tried to be very patient. I appreciate it.

1/2. I have been informed that it is not necessary to required citations on talk pages. This alone is a valid reason for removing them. It was done out of frustration with the claims on the page and the removal of my discussion post on the primary talk page, that's not a good reason though. Which I understand was a controversial opinion. I could have approached it less emotionally and more tactfully and not lashed out aggressively when it was removed, whether or not it was justified. I know now to seek outside opinions on situations and not get involved in or start edit wars at all, it is not the proper solution. I should have stopped when warned by admins, even if I disagreed with their response. I could have requested an outside opinion and perspective on the situation.

3. There have been a few I've considered making minor edits on but haven't been able to. I don't have anything particular in mind but I'm going to avoid the circumcision page. I can control myself if given the ability to edit again and it's not like seeing that page sends me into a fury or something but yeah, I'll just stay away from it. I just want to clear my name because I use this site all the time and love it and I want to have the option of contributing, especially now that I understand the rules better. I know my actions were improper but I truly never meant harm. I was frustrated, emotional, and got into some fights and disagreements with people. Zoboili (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Zoboili (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Z1720 I was wondering if you had a chance to review this. Zoboili (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Can someone please review and resolve this? I have no idea what is going on, no one is talking to me. I'm not the one attempting to falsely "review" my ban, those aren't my accounts. Please. I've read the rules and I apologized and understand why what I did wasn't accepted. Please. I was blocked a LONG time ago and I'm sorry and I've read the linked articles and I can understand how my actions came off as contentious and I want it to be known that I truly was not acting with malicious intent. I tried to talk to Z1720 but they have been gone since I replied. I promise I will not make aggressive edits as I did without forming a consensus on the idea of change before hand. I felt personally attacked by the user that removed my talk page post and I could have formatted and presented my original discussion post in a better way. I will not engage in edit wars regardless of whether or not they were initiated by someone else towards me. I can instead seek 3rd party opinions and attempt to resolve any seemingly personal conflicts or disagreements on what edits are necessary. I love this website and I do want to be able to be a part of it. Please consider at the very least reducing my ban to some sort of time frame. I understand that I made mistakes and I acknowledged them in response to Z1720. Please, this has gone on long enough.

Accept reason:

I am accepting this request with a conditional topic ban from circumcision. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill - no objections here. Hopefully the break will have helped the user mellow. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir and @Rosguill : I would greatly appreciate that. I understand what I did wrong and I promise I have no interest in interacting with any pages related to Circumcision. I was upset and overly aggressive and didn't go about things in the right way and I just want to clear my name and move on. Thank you for reviewing and replying.