Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests/Articles on sex

Original request

Request two

I am writing articles on sex and sexual health. My page on masturbation is being targeted by:

1. Usman Ansari - who removes images and adds arabic (to make it unintelligble)
2. Khangul - deletes info, images and nominates it for deletion.

Around 15 sources have been provided and all words i have used are easily found in qamosona.com and thepashto.com (pashto dictionary websites) I need someone to help me express sex on pashto-wiki. Seendgay (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the page

Seendgay (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User(s) notified on ps.wiki

• Usman Ansari
• Khangul

(The filer -- or anyone -- may replace these with links to the actual ps.wiki user talk pages, and, when the users are notified that this discussion exists, naming them -- which notice should be polite and neutral --, with a diff showing the actual notification.)

Discussion on ps.wiki

(if applicable)

Comments

• This is partly a request for help and partly a complaint. The ideal resolution is that the users, about whom the filer is complaining, help the user. Because there are unresolved issues about how ps.wiki is to handle articles on sex, this may not be so simple, and those issues may be discussed here, and should be discussed on ps.wiki.
• The complaint about the other users is really a content issue, and stewards are unlikely to intervene on that. Rather, ps.wiki users should attempt to negotiate agreement. Failure to do this, with insistence on personal opinion, will show up as revert warring. If a user repeatedly reverts at a high rate, this can be seen and assessed by a steward. When taking a position on content, either avoid simple reverting, attempting to find compromise, or gain the assistance of other users. Do not insist by yourself. Where multiple users are struggling with each other, then a larger community discussion may be started.
• In this request, the user is complaining about two other users. No other support for the user's position is shown, yet. We will see what comment develops. --Abd (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles of Sex under Attack

Articles on Sex are being deleted by multiple user:

• Article of Sperm
• Article on Penis
• Article on Masturbation

Seendgay (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Article of Sperm (history) is not deleted. It was templated for deletion by Mahsil.ghazi, if I read that correctly, there is no attached Talk discussion, and Seendgay reverted the template. (I am not pinging Mahsil.ghazi at this point. Before any suggested resolution here that could affect that user's interests, the user would be invited to comment.)

• Article on Penis (history) has been deleted by a steward, with a page cannot consist of a sole image). This seems routine. If that was an image of a penis, it would likely be deleted immediately on any of the wikis, except, of course, Commons. That's true for any single image with no text, but an image of a penis is more likely to attract opposition, that's all.

• Article on Masturbation (history) shows possible revert warring.

• Seendgay removed substantial comment giving a "religious view."

• He reverted without compromise, and repeatedly. One reason was images had been removed, but the reverts did more than restore images.

• Also Seendgay objects to the use of Arabic (Arabic terms?), and reverts a former admin with summary of "vandalism."

• There was then edit warring between two users over using Arabic, and then a deletion request. Apparently based on "vulgarity." Removed by another user as "vandalism."

• Deletion request by Mahsil.ghazi, removed by Seendgay.

• There is discussion on the Talk page.

• There are some signs of users attempting to compromise. However, "vandalism" is uncivil, where an edit may have been made in good faith.

• I cannot tell, but it is possible that Arabic terms are considered, by some, non-vulgar and some Pashto terms for sexuality may be considered vulgar. These are issues that the Pashto community must resolve. There is a similarity in English, Latin terms (or relatively archaic words) being used in academic study, and ordinary colloquial English being considered vulgar.

• "Coitus," or "sexual intercourse," not "fucking."

• Normally, any user may remove a speedy deletion template, and the remedy, then, if anyone continues to want deletion of a page, is a deletion discussion. The users are discussing the issue on the Talk page, a good sign.

• Seendgay and others are correct, my opinion, that an article should not be deleted because it uses vulgar terms; rather, the terms should be corrected. If terms considered vulgar are being replaced with non-vulgar terms, and that is being reverted because they are "not Pashto", this is a problem, but is not solved by deletion. Rather, I would think that one would find reliable sources in Pashto, if available, and use the terms found there. If not available, my guess would be that the subject is studied using Urdu, Farsi, or Arabic. And the polite -- academic -- terms would be in those languages.

• The issue of images is a more difficult problem. Global consensus on this is not clear; there is a global majority, apparently, that favors the use of explicit images, and a minority that condemns it. The local community can and should decide; absent a global RfC and clear community consensus, solutions should not be imposed by outsiders.

• Preliminary recommendation for Seendgay: Continue to work with others to find agreement. Make compromises that still preserve your most important intentions. Remember that a wiki can change, and it is not necessary to make it perfect immediately, especially not "perfect" in your own opinion. As a community project, articles should reflect community understanding and agreement. You have at least one other user supporting you, but be careful. Both of you can and should seek general agreement. Make that most important, it is more important than the details of content for individual articles. If you can find agreement, then you can work without wasting everyone's time fighting. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Already deleted by new Admin

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Seendgay (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Not "new admin." Two are involved: a steward and a global sysop, the latter is highly experience and has been a global sysop for about six months.
• [4] deleted by steward with (a page cannot consist of a sole image)
• [5] deleted by global sysop with (Necessary maintenance (Global sysop action). No discussion on sysop pswiki talk page. Possibly relevant discussion on pswiki deletions on sysop meta talk page.[6] The deletion apparently came from this request, which was non-specific.
• [7] See above. The page was deleted, same as above, but restored by a steward with: (doesn't seem to be eligible for speedy deletion)

• Suggestions for Seendgay: Be patient. There will be mistakes. There are ways to correct them.
• If you believe that an administrator made an incorrect decision, the first thing to do is to go to the administrator. For an action on ps.wiki, go to their talk page there, and make a polite request for undeletion. Make this as simple as possible. Notice the undeletion reason used by the steward. Your simple request could be like that. Not a complicated argument about people trying to censor you. Just "not eligible for speedy deletion."
• In the case of a global sysop or steward decision, you can also go to their talk meta page. Best to start locally, though. Most stewards or global sysops will have notifications set up so they should see it. If there is no response in a week, then you can go to a request page. There is this process here, which may or may not work. You may certainly come here for advice (and, long-term, support), or you may go to Steward requests/Miscellaneous with a request.
• There should also be a local pswiki page for requesting undeletion. I cannot easily read the pswiki structure. Sometimes it is the same page as is used for requests for deletion.
• Normally, an admin will undo a speedy deletion on request just because it is requested. So, with regard to the deletions still standing, that's what you do. Keep it simple.
• The deletions of pages with just an image, however, are not worth appealing. Just create a page with text. It doesn't need to be much, notice that the steward restored one of the pages where there was very little text, but some. --Abd (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)