User talk:PolenCelestial

Dear Anonymous,

May I know are you a progressive Bohra? Why you hate Dawoodi Bohra culture & beliefs ?


 * I'm Alyssa. Ask any female who hasn't over many years come to accept being genitally mutilated it how she feels about having been held down against her will while her most sensitive parts were sliced into and cut off, usually (when considering the entire FGM population) with no anesthesia and with unsanitary instruments such as razor knives and broken glass, or how she would feel about it being done to her if she still had the body that Creation gave her. The initial pain and disease inflicted is only the beginning of a lifetime of extreme torture. This is the most horrible crime perpetrated in this world, it is ultimate evil. I added the information to Dawoodi Bohra because it's the only FGM group I'm aware of that is distinguishable by religion rather than locality. Most Muslims condemn FGM and it isn't mentioned in the Quran or Hadith. The article is written entirely from the perspective of the males in the sect, with no representation at all of the females who are suffering the most painful thing imaginable.
 * PolenCelestial (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Help Desk edit
With this edit to the Help Desk, you not only contributed to a thread you had started, you deleted my contribution to the previous thread. If you did this deliberately, you were probably right, what I said was not particularly helpful, and I have no wish to see it reinstated now that another editor has given a better answer to the same question. If it was an accident, I hope you will try to be more careful. It is also possible that the Wikipedia server messed up our edits somehow.

Regarding the section on FGM – I am now watching the Dawoodi Bohra article, and will also restore the section if it gets deleted again. Other editors are probably doing the same. Maproom (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it was unintentional. PolenCelestial (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

April 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. ''To be very clear, the 3rr rule is a bright line, not an entitlement. If you edit war over the same material again today, tomorrow, or next week, its still edit warring and you may be blocked.'' Monty  845  02:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Content decision-making
In your filing at DRN you say, "I've been told not to edit war but a consensus is impossible, my understanding is that the Mediation or Arbitration Committee has to issue a final statement on the edit. Which committee is the right one to request mediation/arbitration from in this case? Are there any other options?" Neither of those committees has the right to issue a decision or judgment on content. The Arbitration Committee only deals with questions of misconduct and the Mediation Committee (where I'm a member) only engages in mediation, which is assisted discussion with a view towards trying to achieve consensus (DRN does much the same thing, but on a more informal basis). There is no board or committee or other body at Wikipedia which has the right to make decisions about content matters and participation in mediation or in other moderated content dispute resolution such as DRN is wholly voluntary. Content in articles (and the application of policies and guidelines regarding sourcing and other qualifications for inclusion or inclusion of such content) is always decided by the consensus of the community, except for a few issues such as copyright and libel which involve legal issues. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Your updated argument

 * "The specific question is how to resolve the conflict between my attempt to have the article reflect the data presented in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country and the unwillingness of certain editors to accept this.
 * A conflict is between editors. DRN will not handle conflicts. It is an informal mediation venue for content disputes. Your attempt is creating the conflict. The way to handle such on Wikipedia is to begin a discussion at the administrators noticeboard to begin a discussion on the editor that is causing "disruption" by refusing to accept a consensus of editors on an FA article. The perception is this; you are a newly registered editor with less than 200 edits attempting to edit a controversial, yet highly rated article on Wikipedia against the consensus of editors. I am sorry but..."unwillingness of certain editors to accept this" is called consensus. It doesn't matter in the long run whether you feel absolutely justified in your edits, consensus prevails.


 * "The sources cited in that article meet the criteria for WP:RS; there's no policy basis for "we can't change the sources".
 * First, just meeting criteria is not enough when referring to sources. A source itself is effected by several factors including the author, the book itself and the publisher. Another factor is context. All together these may meet Wikipedia criteria and yet be effected by the overall strength of the source by all of those factors, plus that of context. How you use the source and the claims being made. There are several policy and guideline reasons that would effect changing the sources. Identifying reliable sources must be adhered to. This is possibly the most important guideline page in regards to sources. Please see the section: "Reliability in specific contexts". One behavioral guideline page may help you understand how this is being perceived by very experienced editors: Gaming the system. Under the first section it describes the actions of one editor refusing to accept the local consensus of a group of editors as filibustering. It also states that Wikilawyering or pettifogging is a part of that. As a new editor you may not be aware of this but please be aware that you are now being well informed and any excuse of not knowing will be seen as "..deliberate, where the editor continues to game policy even when it is clear there is no way they can reasonably claim to be unaware".


 * An actual policy page has been cited as reason to exclude your content regardless of sources. that policy is No original research. In particular, WP:SYN. Another policy page you need to better understand is: Dispute resolution. I suggest a review of the entire page as it is very relevant to this situation.


 * "Relying on a single source and excluding all others even if they pass WP:RS flagrantly violates policy". Not really. The policy in regards to medical sources does not specify multiple sources. Only BLP policy requires "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing" and actually states that contentious BLP claims should have multiple strong sources.


 * "Just because FA status was achieved doesn't mean the review process involved an exhaustive search (or any at all AFAIK) for information that needs to be included in order for the article to be accurate."
 * The FA process is not in question. No article is ever finished. However, once an article reaches FA, there tends to be many experienced editors involved in writing and research. You cannot continue to attempt to fight against consensus without becoming disruptive. See: WP:IDHT: "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.". It also states: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. Such tactics are highly disruptive to the project. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages". Now that same section says that one can make a point without being disruptive but I don't think that can be said here at this point.

As a DRN volunteer I recuse myself from the DRN request, however it is my recommendation that this case should be closed as a disruptive. I also recommend that you extend an apology to the talk page and try to make amends with your fellow editors and continue a civil dialogue. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've avoided the point, which is that multiple reliable sources contradict the conclusion reached by taking a source which is known to be an incomplete set of data and deciding it is the only one worth considering. There isn't consensus as you dismissively claim, because half the users mentioned in the DRN disagree with that decision. Moreover, I'm not synthesizing anything because my edit doesn't include any numbers; this is only on the talk page. This post is a blatant intimidation tactic which is obviously completely ineffective here. You say you're not willing to participate in the DRN, yet you're here presumably under the impression that the (male) authoritarian wording you've used has a chance of convincing me to submit to the patriarchal establishment's censorship of data which would inform readers of hundreds of millions of FGM victims that they are not made aware of by the current version of the article. Why would you think the probability of that happening would be worth the time and effort you invested in your post? PolenCelestial (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)