User talk:Arminden

Boris Yefimovich Nemtsov

http://www.jta.org/1976/03/11/archive/davidovich-suffers-heart-attack

so here's an article with a Jewish Russian with the same name as Boris's father you're telling me he's not Jewish too ?

Whats your obsession with going around covering up Jewish people's names ? You some sort of Zionist history revisionist ?

---

Go to vodka detox, them read again, then talk. [Arminden]

Topic ban clarification (I/P conflict)

FIRST 3 POST COPIED FROM SENNECASTER'S TALK-PAGE

Hi. I've been banned from the "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed". I can't figure out how broadly. I've made a few 10,000 edits, most of them relating to history & archaeology of the Southern Levant and related topics over the years. Is all of that off limits?

More concrete: I believe the page Bar Kokhba hiding complexes (relates to 2nd-century events in Roman Judaea) would benefit from adding 2 items to the "See also" section, Erdstall and Souterrain. To be on the safe side, I asked a Wiki friend to check and add them if she agreed (see here). Her answer was that

• she "does not believe this article is included in any CTOPs so she believes I can edit there despite a TBAN", whereby I have no clue what CTOPs are (true, I've hardly spent any time on Wiki manuals; there's more than enough to read on topics which interest me a lot, AND whose meaning is easier for me to decypher - mea culpa).
• if I'm not allowed to perform this edit, asking her could potentially violate WP:PROXYING.

In both cases, her advice is to ask an admin: here I am, doing exactly that :) To be clear: I did read the relevant explanations on "topic ban" and "broadly construed", which didn't help me much.

Unfortunately (and "unfortunately" is how I've always seen this, including the case that got me banned, and have always asked fellow editors to remember this is an encyclopedia, not a party newspaper), ANYTHING seems to become a weapon in this conflict: prehistory, languages, religions, all cultures of the region and beyond. If truly "broadly construed", since the Holy Land and geopolitics are involved, ANY topic is off limits, and from apples (Adam & Eve) to Shakespeare (Shylock) Wikipedia is not for me anymore. We know how irrationally unforgiving cancel culture can be. Btw, the background to my topic ban is my reaction to calling Jesus, Mary and a few other biblical or otherwise ancient characters, "Palestinians", in a way allowing a confusion between a geographic marker ("from Palestine"), and nationality ("Jesus, Mary and Arafat were Palestinians"). If that's OK on Wiki, anything is, including the extension of my ban not just to Bar Kokhba, but to apple and Shakespeare, irrespective of me reacting in a civil or uncivil manner.

Could you please help me understand what this ban is actually covering? I'd really appreciate that! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Arminden; I am not a WP:CT/PIA expert, merely an uninvolved administrator doing clerky things like closing AEs, so I invite @Theleekycauldron, someone who has done incredible work in CT/PIA enforcement, to provide a better answer. To be clear, I am happy that you asked here, but I'm not able to give you an answer I am confident in and I don't want to accidentally risk you a block based on my answer. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You're too kind, Senne!! @Arminden: You're not at all wrong to say that almost anything in the Levant can be a proxy (in the colloquial sense) for the Arab–Israeli conflict. The operative word is can, though: a topic ban from the conflict does not automatically cover all Jews, all of the Bible, or even all of Israel and Palestine. But a user who hangs out only in those areas might well be doing so to influence our coverage of the conflict – "nibbling around the edges", as it's called – and that would be a topic-ban violation. I'll give two examples:

• Editor X is topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Editor X writes about the history of the Levant, and is mainly dedicated to archaeological questions about what life was like for Israelites in the Second Temple period, without commentary on its connection to modern Jewry. Editor X's contributions have no bearing on the modern-day conflict and their edits are not in violation.
• Editor Y is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Editor Y writes a beautifully researched section about the economy of Gush Katif. While Editor Y has pointedly avoided writing about the military reasons behind its establishment and the politics of Israel's withdrawal, they have clearly chosen this topic to paint Israelis as productive stewards of the land and paint Palestinians as destructive by contrast, without directly talking about the conflict and maybe even without POV pushing. Editor Y has violated their topic ban.

To make a too-long story short, I think you can add those two links on tunnels, I think you can edit about Shylock, and I think you can edit about Adam and Eve. I would avoid editing that influences the classic soft factors of the conflict – who has a historical right to the land, whose culture is "superior" (to put it in some very blunt terms I have heard far too often), who has claim to identification of coveted cultural symbols ("was Jesus a Palestinian"?). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sennecaster, thank you very much for bringing in Theleekycauldron and I hope you're OK with me copying this thread to my talk-page and continuing it here, where it will remain always handy and very useful.

Theleekycauldron, thanks a lot for the very useful reply. I have no problem grasping the nouances - why 2TP Judea, Bar Kokhba and the Garden of Eden should be allowed, while praising Gush Katif can't possibly be. If that is the threshold, I'm almost happy about the topic ban: may "THE Conflict" go to the opposite of the Garden of Eden asap and any trace of Wiki activism right with it, no matter who from, as it deeply harms this project. I'll stay out of it as well as all of my combined vigilance neurons allow. See you in Eden, figuratively speaking of course, i.e. in a place where encyclopedias & a good portion of humour replace conflicts & activism. Cheers,

Arminden (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Summing up:

-- In general, archaeology & history, religion etc. are OK.

-- "Classic soft factors of the conflict" are not: who has a historical right to the land, whose culture is "superior", who has claim to identification of coveted cultural symbols ("was Jesus a Palestinian"?) etc.

theleekycauldron, may I ask you for advice if I come across topics which one might (mis)construe as problematic? Maybe get rid of me by pointing out a harsher arbiter, whom nobody can possibly accuse of supporting my alleged biases? But that's in no way a matter of urgency and I promise not to nag. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I just want to make sure you're aware: the Iran-Israel conflict, including proxies (Iran via the Houthis as a proxy vs. Israel, or Iran vs. the U.S. as a proxy for Israel), is covered under this subject area (both for your TBAN and for the CTOP). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Swatjester. Yes, that's not quite a surprise :) What made you want to clarify it? I believe I've stayed way out of any of any of it, have I not? Arminden (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I want to be clear I'm not suggesting you've violated either, you're fine. I only mention it because of this (now-closed) thread (from prior to your TBAN as far as I'm aware), which got resurrected earlier today by a non-XCR editor who repeatedly had been ignoring the restrictions. Since you had been involved with that thread prior to your TBAN, I just wanted to leave this clarification just in case there was any uncertainty, even if unnecessary, out of caution. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Arminden. Thank you.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Grorp. I honestly don't get you. Why overreacting like this? Did I offend you in some way? I offered reasonable arguments, expecting either agreement or counterarguments. What happened on your side? Please help me understand. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)