User talk:Davidbena

t

User:Tamzin or User:Cullen328, can you please post this appeal for me on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard.Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Davidbena and the others, it's at AN now (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Unban request by Davidbena) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

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) · SI)

---

Request reason:

There is no human being on earth who does not occasionally make an honest mistake, just as I did a little more than one year ago, when I inadvertently wrote a less offensive word in place of the more offensive word "rape", in an article which I, myself, had created, entitled Beautiful captive woman. The word that I used instead was "connexion," a word that is used in place of "rape" in other academic sources (e.g. the Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4 [p. 392]). I was unaware at the time that we, as editors on Wikipedia, are generally not allowed to make use of euphemisms (see MOS:EUPHEMISM). For a record of my last appeal (which was declined), scroll down to the bottom of the link here, "Davidbena unban request." See also Asking to be unblocked, and this here.

This venue that I love so much I cannot do away with. I return back to her (Wikipedia) because I love what I have done here, in the small contributions that I've made from 2014-2025, and which I hope to make still. And, yes, I am currently banned from editing this site because of a reprimand that the community felt had to be made against me, because of that article which I created and edited, and in which I neglected (not willfully, but inadvertently) a rule that says we cannot make-use of euphemisms. I am fully in agreement with the need for accountability on Wikipedia, and how that punishment is altogether right, fair and just whenever editors step out-of-line. There is no question in my mind (agreeing whole-heartedly) that in a reputable venue such as this, where there must be accuracy and where editors must adhere to rules and regulations, there has to be accountability whenever these rules are abrogated. With that said, I wish to call attention to my fellow-editors here how that the preponderance of my work here on Wikipedia has been good and useful to people from different backgrounds, with many historical, geographical and botanical articles having no small importance. Although my articles and contributions speak for themselves, in order to prove my worth on this great project, I would be willing to place myself under a 6-month trial period during which time all my edits will be forwarded (in advance) to an administrator for approval oir rejection.

The one thing that we need here on Wikipedia is patience. I am humbly asking to be brought back into the fold. I will do my utmost best to adhere to all rules, and whenever I am in doubt, I will ask the advice of an administrator. Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The community did not come to consensus to unban you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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 was just about to suggest that you ask someone other than me, since I'm not currently an admin and have reduced availability as I navigate shnat ha-evel. But I see you had the same idea and have edited your comment to ping Cullen as well, which is great. However, when you add a username to an existing message, it actually doesn't send a ping; stupid, I know. So I'll fix that for you: @Cullen328. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamzin. Perhaps you can remind him (Cullen) on his Talk Page, too. Anyway, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you can read the discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_by_Davidbena. I really think you should look carefully at the reasons many editors did not want you unbanned, especially that "appeal above doesn't really address the reason Davidbena was banned", (my bolding), cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I read it and I will analyze it. My only reason for wanting to argue the moral ethics of rape during time of war was to show, somehow, why the Torah condemns rape when it comes to a betrothed woman (punishable by death), but excuses it during time of war, under certain circumstances, as hard as that might sound. It is hard to articulate these matters, seeing that it is something generally disapproved of today throughout all societies. My intent was to explain the reasoning behind the Torah, rather than to interject any personal bias or feelings. Unfortunately, this delicate matter was not understood by my peers. Perhaps I'll explain it better in my next appeal.Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

No, Davidbena: the problem is not that the "matter was not understood by my peers", the problem is that you are seen as trying to make excuses for the unexcusable, namely rape. Especially in a time when Israelis are widely accused of raping Palestinian prisoners, this is seen as an outrage. If you want to say that the Torah makes excuses for rape (under certain circumstances), then at a minimum, this must be balanced with any present day condemnation of that passage; otherwise it will be seen as trying to give a justification of rape in war-time. And that is simply not acceptable, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Huldra: I can assure you that I will address ALL their concerns in my next appeal, and you will see that Israelis do not condone rape. In fact, the Torah itself makes it tantamount to murder, whenever a betrothed virgin is raped by another man! See Deuteronomy 22:26. The rapist is punished with death. Moreover, anyone looking at my edit history will see that I, from the very onset, wrote about the implications of rape according to modern International law! Yes, I did that, too. But all this seemed to have been ignored, simply because the nature of the article speaks about sexual violation of captive non-Jewish women during a time of war, because of man's animal-like nature. As for what you said is happening today in the Land of Israel / Palestine, this is criminal and has no legal justification. In fact, these recent cases of prisoner abuse were, as far as I know, only a few isolated incidents, and they have all Israelis outraged and incensed! Believe me when I say that this behavior is not commensurate with the Jewish nation. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, according to Nicholas Kristof in NYT it has been far more than "a few isolated incidents". And the greetings of the soldiers who were accused of rape in the Sde Teiman detention camp shows that no, NOT "all Israelis [were] outraged and incensed". And you using an euphemism for the word rape in the original discussion, also did not impress anyone (to put it very diplomatically),

Anyway; I had no intension of discussing present-day rapes with you, but my 2 cents: if you argue the way you did above: except zero symphony from other wp editors, (I suspect few Israelis understand the complete disgust people outside Israel feel reading -and even seeing videos (from Sde Teiman) about this, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC).

I vividly remember in one or two instances where I linked to the word "rape" when making use of a euphemism. Sometimes my choice of wording was only to make the article sound less redundant (repetitious), as well as my enjoyment of using "poetic terms" which can beautify prose and academic writing. It wasn't always to "diminish the severity of the word." Rape is still what it is. It's ugly. As for the Sde Teiman detention camp incident, if the soldiers who raped prisoners were greeted by well-wishers, psychologists might explain it as showing signs of Post Traumatic stress syndrome after October 7, 2023. Just guessing here.Davidbena (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

And still it is clear, from the ANI thread leading to the siteban that several (very experienced) editor found you to use euphemisms...

Anyway, we have to be careful here, as AFAIK, you are only allowed to use the talk-page for your unblock-request. I don't want you to lose talk-page access, too!

I think my best advice for your next unblock-attempt, is for you to see what you did wrong, not what your fellow editors did not understand, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that opinion pieces, and ones that are sourced to extremely biased organizations, should never be used as a source on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

David, please do what's needed and try to "repent", whatever you think of the matter. Your expertise is sourly needed. Drop everything conflict-related, there's nothing to be attained there. There are enough people who can only contribute on that; on Judaism, there's nobody to take your place, it seems. I apologise for giving advice ("look who's talking!"), but I mean it quite honestly and pragmatically. We don't share the same view on quite a few things, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to useful knowledge and skills. So please do consider. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I will soon submit an appeal to my ban. I'm confident that the community will be favorable, after I've shown them that I made a mistake that will not be repeated, and that there's more to the article than what meets the eye. Wikipedia has many a good editors with common sense. Looking forward to contributing here again.Davidbena (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Appeal to my ban on Wikipedia

User:Ynhockey, I'm looking for an administrator who will agree to post for me this appeal on ANI. I cannot do this myself, as I am currently banned.Davidbena (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

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) · SI)

---

Request reason:

A complaint was brought before this board about 18 months ago for my having made use of euphemisms in an article created by me, viz. in Beautiful captive woman, hoping to find a less offensive word for the word "rape," and which, at the time, I was unaware that its usage contravened MOS:EUPHEMISM. It was only in February 15, 2025 that I became aware of this prohibition (see diff), when, after writing a euphemism, my edit was reverted and I was given the reason why, at which time I duly refrained from using euphemisms, except for once when I copied a source taken from Maimonides who actually made use of a euphemism / synonym himself for sexual intercourse (see diff). I took the liberty to make use of synonyms for sexual intercourse throughout the article, in order to avoid redundancy. By this time, it was too late, as my actions were reported to ANI, as shown here. I appealed my ban, and my appeal was rejected for failure to explain some of the concerns of our fellow editors, which I will now endeavor to do by answering honestly and thoroughly the concerns of my fellow editors. A record of my misplaced appeal can be seen here, and the last appeal made here.

The complaint before ANI was submitted. Had this not been enough, when my colleagues reviewed my edit history in that article, my edits came under full scrutiny during my last appeal (see here), an editor taking issue with me for having written, "The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law",(diff) which, by the way, was sourced to Wright, Q. (1917). "Conflicts of International Law with National Laws and Ordinances". The American Journal of International Law. 11 (1): 3. JSTOR 2187270., and who had actually asked the same question long before me, writing: "The more important question, however, is that of the attitude of national courts to international law in case it conflicts with a rule embodied in some other source of law. This question must be answered for each country with reference to its own jurisprudence" (End Quote). The question was asked broadly, and was only meant to stress the fact that laws have changed over the millennia, many of which stand at variance with international law. Establishing this premise seemed important to me, seeing that I wanted to juxtapose the characterization of rape of captive women in the Bible with the standard characterization of rape of war captives in International law, and to show how they differ. Some understood this to imply that "Jews might be exempt from international laws regarding rape", broadly construed. The comparison was a mistake, as I had clearly stepped beyond my bounds, and by offering such a comparison I shocked the sensibilities of many a good editor here on Wikipedia the very moment they read such statements, as we all know that rape is a violation of human dignity. What's more, this statement made some editors think that I was advocating rape from a religious perspective, may God forbid. The way in which the topic was broached to the public left room for many doubts as to the Torah's intention, and which I failed to clarify. For example, I failed to show unequivocally that there is no condoning the act of rape as a norm in society. The Torah itself makes rape tantamount to murder, whenever a betrothed virgin is raped by another man! See Deuteronomy 22:25–26. The rapist is punished with death. Anyone wishing to argue the moral ethics of rape during time of war will find it hard to explain why the Torah condemns rape when it comes to a betrothed woman (punishable by death), but seems to excuse it during time of war, such as when he wants to take the woman as his lawfully wedded wife. In actuality, however, the Torah never excuses the act, as shall be shown in what follows. Rape is universally condemned throughout all societies. The question here, however, is not whether or not it is wrong – as it is most certainly wrong, but rather what did the Torah actually mean by seeming to "excuse a soldier" who acted on his own passions during warfare? -- bearing in mind that biblical laws are often inscrutable to those not trained in Jewish classical law, but after a careful inquiry into the matter, the result that one finds is that the Torah condemns the act of rape.

In biblical law, a Jewish soldier is likely to be enamored by a beautiful gentile woman held captive by the army, and he might seek to make her his lawfully wedded wife, but meanwhile foolishly engage in sexual relations with her, with or without her consent (a thing clearly called by the rabbis an act of evil passion, and where he runs the risk of causing blemish to his own family and offspring, and where his act is still seen as being vile and unrestrained, and where the Torah acknowledges that the soldier acted contrary to Jewish custom), but, after the fact, the court system in ancient Israel was to overlook this act because of the extenuating circumstances in which he found himself (i.e. war) and because he wanted to take the woman as his wife. Compare the writings of the 14th-century rabbi, Nethanel ben Isaiah], who wrote in his book Me'or ha-Afelah, Parashas Tetzei (p. 535), "…And you desire to take her to be your wife [Deut. 21:11], [meaning], there should not be in his thought coitus for the sake of prostitution." We know that the Jewish soldier had sexual relations with the woman, based on (Deuteronomy 21:10–14). What we don't know is whether he "raped" her by force, or "seduced" her into the act. The Torah is ambivalent in its description. By all accounts, "seduction" – though criminal in nature – is a less punishable offense. In some cases, the captive woman may have even agreed to consummate a marriage with her captor, which might explain why he goes unpunished. We do not know. Rabbi and philosopher, Maimonides, wrote in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part III, chapter 41), "For although the soldier may be overcome by his desire which he is unable to suppress or to restrain, he must take the object of his lust to a private place, 'into the inner of his house' (Deut. 21:12), and he is not permitted to force her in the camp." (see p. 350). That, then, is the gist of the biblical episode being described in this article.

I am aware that I overgeneralized an extremely difficult and painful topic, which I suppose I should never have undertaken to discuss in an article in the first place … My lack of clarity in this particular article has justified my having to bear all the blame for my current ban.

Again, my mistake was to write about the implications of rape according to modern International law (see diff), juxtaposed against this old biblical law. I thought that I would be remiss had I not done so. My purpose was only to show how attitudes have changed throughout the millennia, vis-à-vis the old biblical standard, and which often Jews take pride in (I mean, in their laws, but not in rape). I cited the views of J. David Bleich and A. Jacobson (in journal, Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law, "The Jewish legal tradition", 2012), who placed Jewish law on a level of its own (see diff), but which now, looking back in retrospect, I should have avoided, since some Jews are prone to think of their sacred writings as immutable (Bleich & Jacobson 2012). Again, the rape of women is wrong, by all standards of justice.

Ar2332 judiciously condensed the edit on April 1, 2025, correctly citing in his edit summary that the "Torah permits rather than requires this act" (see diff); meaning, in biblical times it was "permitted," only in the sense of it being tolerated after the fact, but not as a first resort or your go-to choice, and not that he should go out looking for a woman to rape during times of war! Again, the editor who wrote those words was not interjecting his personal opinion here, but only explaining the import of that old and antiquated biblical law, which, in an article like this, is an editor's duty to explain. Maimonides expresses it more succinctly: "Thus the Law does not ignore the cohabitation of the Israelite with the captive woman, although it involved disobedience to God to some extent, having taken place when she was still a heathen" (see Maimonides here). Raping or seducing a woman in warfare, therefore, was never a biblical requirement. There was never an imperative biblical command to do so. The act was always discouraged. And, yes, both, International law and biblical law denounce it.

The laws governing a beautiful captive woman do not apply in the modern, secular State of Israel, as the Jewish community at large acquiesces to International law in these cases. And this we say with the full understanding that the nature of this article predisposes that in times of warfare man's evil nature sometimes has him do what he would not otherwise do. We do not condone this. In each and every society, the severity of punishment meted out to the predator for rape and/or consensual sex depends on the court's jurisdiction in which it finds itself, as well as on the framework of the law. The nature of the article speaks about sexual violation of captive non-Jewish women during a time of war, an act scorned by all nations today.

Contrary to what one editor wrote that I might be advocating this practice in the ARBPIA area of responsibility, I can assure him that these rules do not apply in the modern, secular State of Israel, and I would NEVER encourage such actions. Israeli soldiers who rape prisoners are duly punished in Israeli courts of law.

In addition, it is important to point out that, in some instances while editing this article, I preferred to use a synonym for "sexual intercourse." What I failed to address in my first ANI complaint, when I was told by User:Cullen328 that "coitus and sexual intercourse are not synonyms for rape", is that based on Deuteronomy 21:10 – ff. it is still unclear whether or not the soldier forcibly raped her (the victim) or seduced her (the victim), or that the woman herself lured the man (compare Rashi's commentary on Deuteronomy 21:13 here]), "… for the women of enemy nations beautify themselves when a war is being fought in their city in order to lure the soldiers of the other nations into being with them." This ambivalence then would have given us more liberty to make use of those other words, including the use of the word "rape".

Often, my choice of wording was only to make the article sound less redundant (repetitious), as well as my enjoyment of using "poetic terms" which can beautify prose and academic writing. It wasn't always to "diminish the severity of the word." Rape is still what it is. It's ugly. I can see though why, by my choice of words, some might think that I had ulterior motives to portray rape in a lighter undertone than what it actually is and to lessen its severity.

With all due respect, I am kindly asking of my colleagues here to be brought back into the fold, and to volunteer my services on Wikipedia. There has never been a total want of application to my work here, on Wikipedia. However, one of my mistakes here was to write about a subject which required greater clarity. My lack of clarity in this particular article has justified my having to bear all the blame for my ban, and I do admit that no man is unassailable. Again, I would be willing to be placed under probation for six-months, if my fellow editors should deem that course of action fitting, during which time I shall submit all edits to an administrator for his approval or disapproval. Or else I can be placed under a Topic ban which will prohibit me from writing anything about sex, with the one exception of making the clarifications needed in this article (Beautiful captive woman), namely, that it is strictly forbidden as a first resort for an Israelite to engage in a sexual relation with a captive woman during war. Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No one in the community is going to read this lengthy posting. One that is closer to the length of your previous request would be much better. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

My more condensed appeal to lift ban

User:331dot, I have condensed the wording of my appeal, in accordance with your request. Can you please post this for me on ANI?Davidbena (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

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) · SI)

---

Request reason:

A complaint was brought before this board about 18 months ago for my having made use of euphemisms in an article created by me, viz. in Beautiful captive woman, hoping to find a less offensive word for the word "rape," and which, at the time, I was unaware that its usage contravened MOS:EUPHEMISM. It was only in February 15, 2025 that I became aware of this prohibition (see diff), when, after writing a euphemism, my edit was reverted and I was given the reason why, at which time I duly refrained from using euphemisms, except for once when I copied a source taken from Maimonides who actually made use of a euphemism / synonym himself for sexual intercourse (see diff). I took the liberty to make use of synonyms for sexual intercourse throughout the article, in order to avoid redundancy. By this time, it was too late, as my actions were reported to ANI, as shown here. I appealed my ban, and my appeal was rejected for failure to explain some of the concerns of our fellow editors, which I will now endeavor to do by answering honestly and thoroughly the concerns of my fellow editors. A record of my misplaced appeal can be seen here. Statements made by me made some editors think that I was advocating rape from a religious perspective, may God forbid. The way in which the topic was broached to the public left room for many doubts as to the Torah's intention, and which I failed to clarify. For example, I failed to show unequivocally that there is no condoning the act of rape as a norm in society. The Torah itself makes rape tantamount to murder, whenever a betrothed virgin is raped by another man! See Deuteronomy 22:25–26. The rapist is punished with death. In biblical law, a Jewish soldier that had had relations with a captive woman has acted out of passion and he causes a blemish to his own family. He acted contrary to Jewish custom. The 14th-century rabbi, Nethanel ben Isaiah], wroteon this subject, saying, "…And you desire to take her to be your wife [Deut. 21:11], [meaning], there should not be in his thought coitus for the sake of prostitution." We know that the Jewish soldier had sexual relations with the woman, based on (Deuteronomy 21:10–14). What we don't know is whether he "raped" her by force, or "seduced" her into the act. The Torah is ambivalent in its description. By all accounts, "seduction" – though criminal in nature – is a less punishable offense. In some cases, the captive woman may have even agreed to consummate a marriage with her captor, which might explain why he goes unpunished. We do not know. Rabbi and philosopher, Maimonides, wrote in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part III, chapter 41), "For although the soldier may be overcome by his desire which he is unable to suppress or to restrain, he must take the object of his lust to a private place, 'into the inner of his house' (Deut. 21:12), and he is not permitted to force her in the camp." (see p. 350). That, then, is the gist of the biblical episode being described in this article. In retrospect, I should not have broached the public with this complex and difficult piece of Jewish history. Contrary to what one editor wrote that I might be advocating this practice in the ARBPIA area of responsibility, I can assure him that these rules do not apply in the modern, secular State of Israel, and I would NEVER encourage such actions. Israeli soldiers who rape prisoners are duly punished in Israeli courts of law. With all due respect, I am kindly asking of my colleagues here to be brought back into the fold, and to volunteer my services on Wikipedia. My lack of clarity in this particular article has justified my having to bear all the blame for my ban, and I do admit that no man is unassailable. Again, I would be willing to be placed under probation for six-months, if my fellow editors should deem that course of action fitting, during which time I shall submit all edits to an administrator for his approval or disapproval. Or else I can be placed under a Topic ban which will prohibit me from writing anything about sex, with the one exception of making the clarifications needed in this article (Beautiful captive woman), namely, that it is strictly forbidden as a first resort for an Israelite to engage in a sexual relation with a captive woman during war.Davidbena (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your appeal has been declined by the community. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

I have posted it. Taking this out of the unblock request queue while under discussion at ANI. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to AN. See WP:AN#Ban appeal of Davidbena. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)