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]

April 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Werner Braun (photojournalist) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 13:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08. Thanks for the good intentions. On the other hand, I truly hate bot-speak: verbose, too technical & abstract (I had no idea what you were talking about, it took me a while to guess that you actually meant to say "the infobox for artists doesn't have the parameter "nationality""), impersonal, usually silly (like thanking me for contributing to Wikipedia - after some 14 years of rather sustained activity...), and often plain wrong, like here. I did NOT add the infobox parameter "nationality": I found it there, and just filled in the empty line. Let's keep the bots where they belong. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Nothing about what I left you was done by a bot. The fact that I took the time to inform you of an error you caused by failing the basic requirement of using WP:PREVIEW and then got insulted by the way I chose to inform you, says plenty about your attitude as an editor. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Good morning to you too. Arminden (talk) 08:15, 9 April 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. NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 22:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi NorthernWinds. I can see that you took it up as a cause and felt offended and compelled to act. I'm convinced that addressing me directly before "going to trial" would have been much more useful to all the three of us. I can learn and correct my ways, you can get a fuller picture, and Tiamut can gain quite a bit as well, but let's leave her out for now.

I wasn't consciously aware of your work here. You'd be surprised at how well we could cooperate on some topics, having far less disputes than you seem to assume, if any. I am more interested in archaeology and history, and I'm trying hard, but obviously not hard enough, to stay out of politics, but having conversations with thorough, well-informed fellow editors is a bonus on Wiki and I am always looking for such. It might be too late for this, but maybe not. Be assured that this isn't an attempt to influence the "trial" or anything of that sort, and if I get blocked, tant pis. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Arminden,

I don't have time right now to respond to this or any other query, so I will write my response later. However, I recommend that you trim/compress your statement because there is a word limit NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 09:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks NorthernWinds, I know, that's a problem with non-native speakers - and of mine in particular, I guess.

Yesterday I came across the same kind of irrational approach, this time with a Romanian colouring. Somebody wrote that "Romanians of the Early Neolithic period (Starčevo-Criş culture) were extracting salt there already in 6500 BC..." (FB, here). Romanians of the Early Neolithic?! In Romania such people are always nationalistically motivated and are qualified as suffering from "Dacopathy", from Dacia + pathos. In other regions lack of knowledge can suffice as explanation, or be explained by a still ongoing struggle for national emancipation. Such statements would have been part of the arguments of European national movements 100 or 200 years ago, but this phase, probably justified back then, is thankfully over by now in Europe.

My point: on Facebook any kind of crazy claim is allowed, they're not writing an encyclopedia. Arminden (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Catch 22, Wiki style: What do you do when a fellow editor shows signs of disingenuity?

There is always a clear distinction between a noun or adjective relating to a person's nationality or ethnicity, and a homophonous adjective which only works as a geographical marker. Easy. Example:

• Mexican, as a Mexican person ("He/she is Mexican").
• Mexican, as something from Mexico ("The oldest Mexican dinosaur fossil").

Nobody would call Moctezuma a "Mexican", but he would be mentioned in every history of Mexico.

There is no way that an educated person wouldn't grasp the difference. By necessity, if they insist, it's not for lack of understanding, but for ulterior motives. Claiming for instance that serious, non-fringe authors are calling Canaanite or Philistine rulers "Palestinians", as a noun (or derived adjective), as in: ethnic denominator, and not at best as "Palestinian", adjective, as in: from Palestine (region)/Land of Israel (another faulty projection if presumed to be an "eternal" denomination)/Southern Levant etc., that is not just nonsense, but pushing an agenda.

Now comes the catch-22: something's clear as daylight, but Wiki policy requires that you do not call a spade a spade. Agenda means: ulterior motive, but "thou must presume good will". Does that make sense? To me, never. One shouldn't, of course, curse & kick: that's uncivil. But not to spell out the obvious? That's the worst one can do, especially here.

Understanding a text is a skill tested in every school. If you master it, you have the basic skill to get educated and pass it on, for instance by editing here. If you don't, it has a clear, matter-of-fact name: functional illiteracy. If you have the skill, but you don't use it when not convenient, it's disingenuous, and in any "national struggle" context, it's more likely than not - activism. It can be justified politically, but never encyclopedically.

Encyclopaedias are a typical product of European Enlightenment. They're supposed to preserve and make available knowledge, in the active hope of educating and getting ever closer to "the truth", seen at the time as objective and eventually accessible. Any means of obfuscating the rationally obvious, is a direct enemy of this entire spirit. Ideologies, activism, cancel culture - none of this belongs here. Arminden (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Arminden You do not need to convince the convinced (this refers to all you said but siggestions of illiteracy etc) NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 13:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You've analysed my actions correctly in this first sentence. I felt personally offended myself from your comments so I took it to AE. Given your prior sanctions and conversations on this page, I was not convinced that you would be productive to talk to about this.

I wasn't consciously aware of your work here Out of curiosity, which contributions are you referring to here specifically?

I don't assume that we are going to have disputes. In fact, I agree with your arguments at Talk:List of Palestinians. My issue is your conduct and I think that it is fair that administrators review it.

As a personal advice, I would suggest firstly trimming your statement (the word limit is 500 and you're already at 700, and remember that you need extra room for responses). Second, if you truly do sincerely regret your words, I advise you to be upfront about it and reflect. I have no issues with you if you start being more civil after this report. The place to say that someone is doing advocacy is AE, and it must be done with evidence. Elsewhere, you're being very uncivil. Comments such as "This is becoming childish to the max" are not helpful either.

Ultimately, you need to convince uninvolved administrators, not me (though I'd be happy to be proven wrong). If they are convinced, then I am convinced as well. NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 11:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you NorthernWinds, I appreciate you taking the time.

I've never considered the many Wiki guidelines, abbreviations, etc., etc. to be a worthy time investment. I didn't know about the 500-word limit and for me AE is American English. If normal rules of conversation don't suffice, I'll give up and move away from Wiki. It would be a welcome step back into the "real world".

Anyway, I've long moved away from political topics, almost completely. I landed at that list while looking up a name and it struck me as beyond ridiculous.

There are efforts by both "camps" to cancel people considered biased. This approach means that we've lost Nishidani and Davidbena, who can't be replaced in terms of knowledge, and many, many other good editors, with whom one could strongly disagree, but still appreciate their input. In the current climate, things got worse, of course. But it's never been Nishidani' fucks and damns that damaged the project, as much as the activists' doggedness at never giving up and at times setting traps. I'm NOT speaking here of Tiamut, I actually didn't expect my possible end here to come from her. But I see no good in playing the defendant in a Wiki trial, that's far too ridiculous under the given circumstances (who gets to decide what based on what), so I'll try to leave it at that. I've always deleted all invitations to "rise through the ranks" at Wiki. Bureacracy is a necessary evil, to a point, but never my friend. All the best, Arminden (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome for my time,

I do not know these editors, though I've seen them in the archives. I am a relatively new editor in this topic. We are on the same side in the discussion, so I hope you understand that this is no attempt to silence you for your opinion on this issue.

I hear you NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 13:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

​I never implied that, although that might end up being the outcome :)) Life is dialectical :)) Arminden (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

One more word: exasperation. Mea culpa, losing one's temper is never advisable. Arminden (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You have again misrepresented my argument. And called me either illiterate or disingenuous. While i have never commented on what I think of you, your interventions and commentary towards ny editing, nor taken any of your repeated insults to WP:AE. You are not a victim here, certainly not at my hands anyway. Tiamut (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

​Hi. You didn't create that page, it's been around since 2004 (!), although hardly anyone took much notice of it. (Damn the moment I did.) So why do you presume I'm always referring to you?

The matter discussed there is so obvious that no one will ever be able to address it in a honest manner while at the same time paying attention to all the catch-22 Wiki guidelines. The minefield has been set. The only reasonable thing to do is to ignore it, stay away. Those who went in have by now written thousands upon thousands of words, repeating the very same over and over and over again. The twofold meaning of the term discussed is plainly visible to anyone. There are no two ways of interpreting the endless countering there. But it's not civil to use the terms I did and others didn't, so other people don't get banned, but it also goes on ad infinitum, with no intellectual gain for anyone, least so the user. But who cares.

Shame on me for going in, and shame on me for losing my temper & manners. Arminden (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You thanked ArticOcean for his comment. The May 5th diff he cited is a repeat of your rant above and directed toward me. So, frankly your comment that I am being presumptious is also unwarranted. I welcome an interaction ban, as you have been singularly aggressive towards my editing contributions at multiple pages fostering a suboptimal editing environment for me here. Perhaps some time to reflect will make things better in the future. Tiamut (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

And what on earth is your thing with "victim"? I never said or hinted that I feel like being your victim! It's very obvious that we are shadowboxing here against things we hate. You're looking & finding things that sound like Zionist tropes, and I look & find things that sound like tropes typical of Palestinianism. I'm not a poker player and lost it; you're playing it cooler, going summud. But this is not a poker table! This whole thing is a derailment of the Wiki project. Pushing Nishidani, and Davidbena, and Nableezy, and Gilabrand, etc., and now me (keeping the proportions, of course) out of the project surely feels like vindication and a political victory, but it badly damages the project, I have zero doubt about it. I'd love to see them all back in, and I'd love to see this Inquisition fuelled by a weird sense of "spreading justice through strong guardianship of the Holy Rules" rolled down by several notches. I just checked and was relieved that Al Ameer son hasn't been pushed out - thank God for little mercies.

I can easily take a strong word. I can much harder deal with irrationality and disingenuity. I'm certainly not always diagnosing correctly either of them, and that's bad. But a good discussion (as opposed to a stiff, formal exchange of abbreviations- and links-ridden replies) is always a valid remedy. I honestly still don't know your own honest opinion on the matter! Pretending that it doesn't matter and that we're just conveyor belts bringing forward RS-supported concepts whose correctness we don't care about, like first-generation IAs, is precisely the point that drives me crazy. I can be honest. Can you?

Do you believe that everyone who ever lived for long enough as a native in Palestine is Palestinian, i.a. part of the Palestinian people, as defined in the article "Palestinians"? That's the crux. The rest is shadowboxing.

I don't. I certainly do believe that every single group which lived in Southern Levant left a trace in all the aspects that make out the identity of the Palestinian people, including Moabites, Phoenicians, Mongols and Crusading Franks. Were they "Palestinians" while being here? Hell, no!

Are there different strands of identities connected to the land which are still surviving until today? Hell, yes! Canaanite - Israelite - Jewish; Canaanite - Israelite + others - Samaritan; the Druze; and I'm sure that I've missed some smaller groups. Are they "Palestinians"? No. Are among them, and among the Armenians and other ethnoreligious groups, individuals or sub-groups who self-identify as "Palestinians"? I bet, but they're far from being a majority.

Pretending that we don't know this and picking out a few RS quotations which are, at best, ambiguous, isn't part of an open, intellectually balanced dialogue. And that's what one should thrive for, not winning at the "game of rules" or poker. You are most obviously more than capable of both approaches. If someone is less educated and capable of rational analysis, but simply a dogged supporter of an ideology, it's hard to feel exasperated by them.

It would have been a pity for me to get blocked before writing this; now I feel relaxed about it all. I always appreciate a good, clever exchange and had a lot to gain from such on Wiki talk pages. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

​Essential: I agree with most contemporary academics who don't see nationhood as something immovable, quasi eternal. It's a human social construct. Projecting far back in time any type of national identity has long stopped being a mainstream approach. With some, the process of creating a national concept and project is newer, with others slightly older, but none go very far. The term denoting one's nationality today is often borrowed from older vocabulary, and has a substantially different meaning from its older ones. You won't find much support in academia for projecting the concept any further into the past than the 19th century in most places, and the 20th for many others.

Language and cultural continuity (as in: ever-evolving, but staying connected) is another thing altogether. Regarding the Palestinians, you'd find the usual pattern though: Gaza and environs are not just geographically closer the Egypt, Negev Bedouin have their own separate strong characteristics, while most of the rest is much more closely related to Bilad ash-Sham. Modern events though have rearranged relationships and identities.

Jews are far from being one nation, while Israelis are much closer, and this includes, to various degrees, Arabs and other non-Jewish residents. This is the conclusion of sociologists, not of propagandists. It is conceivable that the nation-state of Israel could fall apart due to internal variations and changes of identity among the Jews. In this field, there is no immovable, long-term constancy. That is as valid for the Palestinians, like it or not.

Zaher el-Umar lived in the 18th century, as a tax farmer in Galilee under the Ottomans. The concept of nation hadn't even appeared in his time, anywhere. That's exactly my point: the blurring of concepts.

Cultural influence and affinity is something entirely different. You're saying that for a Galilean Christian, Jesus takes precedence, but for quite a few analysts St Paul's faith, Greek Orthodoxy (in both theology and Church organisation), or the Ottoman millet approach looks like the more influential element in worldview and social structure. That's precisely the point where subjectivity meets academia, and neither has a monopoly on truth, although Wiki tends to prioritise scholarly opinions, questionable and subject to fashions as they might be.

I'm sure none of this is in any way new to you. But while it constantly swinged in the background, you seemed to do your utmost to fight it without addressing it, by staying on the formal level of "fight the quotes if you can". Here, I've spelled it out. Arminden (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel any sense of victory. Nor am I playing any form of game. It was not me who brought you to AE. And I have never hidden my own beliefs, stating openly that as a Palestinian Christian I do consider Jesus to be part of ancestral and national heritage. You have been micro-focused on me and my motivations, while ignoring the deeply unhelpful positionings of others, including yourself. I miss some of the editors you mentioned and I do not litigate at AE. Your approach to me remains deeply condescending and suspicious, unfortunately. And that is the last I have to say on the matter. Go with God. Tiamut (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

Arminden (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per this AE request.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this topic ban using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this topic ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

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)