Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive371

Statement by Geremia

Statement by (username)

Statement by Tiamut

The two editors User:NorthernWinds named in her report, and who she alerted to its filing have been following me around (diff #1). Final warning from admin to GordonG following his unsubstantiated ANI report against me (filed as I was compiling a report for AE here). The other editor deleted my message on their talk page asking them to stop (diff #2). Tiamut (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

NW's first message on my talk was posted on May 7th, the same day GordonG left me uninvited warning messages, both pertaining to disputes at List of Palestinians, a page I edited before both arrived. Since then, NW has left multiple, messages unrelated to article content and followed me:

3. chronic communication problems characterize interactions between NW and I
4. reverts my edits without discussion, deleting sourced material
5. removes a tag I added claiming "aspersions", but she said she used AI to generate content for that page and I explained my rationale on talk; she also created the page following a failed split proposal she opened, participated in, closed, and characterized me alone as to blame when others opposed its creation too while accusing me of OWN behaviour
6. tell her I am editing elsewhere and need time to respond re: the other tag - so, she follows me (my first edit May 27th) starts making several unhelpful edits:
7. attributing material stated by several scholars to one, and adding "Muslim Arab"
8. unexplained deletion of footnote, edit summary "formatting citation"
9. says she has no problem with sourced info in the lead
10. then deletes the same info and sources (easily moved into body if placement was the problem)
11. readds "Muslim Arab" to the geographical-belonging-Palestinian-identity description while claiming in the discussion that such an identity does not exist/is not being referred to
12. provoking to waste my (and now your) time

To reply to NW's diff 1, my objection to using "ethnic" is universal and I reject its application to Palestinians too (Note the newly EC account I am replying to there has also followed me from Palestinians to Palestinian Arabic to Al-Maqdisi to Palestinian identity and Talk:Holy Fire! since May 25th). Tiamut (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC) - Follow-up to NW's lastest "proof" Tiamut (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Re: "ethnicity" Tiamut (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Would deeply appreciate someone looking at what User:ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen is doing at Talk:Holy Fire just now again and elsewhere.Tiamut (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@User:GordonGlottal might not be aware(?) I created the etymology section at Gauze in 2009. Tiamut (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Never made an exhaustive list of where Gordon followed me, but I did mention List of Palestinians. He knows I left the article I created because of his attitude there. Respected no boundaries until warned by @User:Nil Einne. Tiamut (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@User:Maltazarian, Several things, but confine myself to: the idea a list about "complicated" Palestine is somehow less complicated/problematic if about Jews there strains credulity. Tiamut (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Welcome an IBAN, but do consider, NW inserted herself on my talk page, opened two AE cases (one "for" me, and one against me), and followed me to multiple articles. My recent engagement on her talk to address a diff here was a mistake. Tiamut (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Fully agree and apologize for my role in feeding the forum. Tiamut (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• The diff in the OP pointed to how the "othering" of European Jews led to their exclusion from European nationalisms, and to Nazism. I struggle to understand how it can be cited as evidence of antisemitism, though I do understand how it might be interpreted as inappropriate/unnecessary.
• Engaging NW on her talk page to discuss the previous diff was poor judgement on my part. I already recognized and apologized for that above. This comment was a jibe and expression of my own frustration over the past month over the questioning of Palestinian identity across multiple pages. I will avoid all such personal commentary in the future.
• A topic ban for this is severe. I have not been seriously accused of antisemitism or hate here in 20 years of editing. @User:Tamzin may have misunderstood some of my comments in that unfortunate WP:FORUM. There are many definitions of ethnicity and part of my problem with the term is its imprecision. Tiamut (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

"Your identity narrative" was more a reference to my own]. I apologize for any offense caused but also feel deeply frustrated that this one comment has become the central issue, rather than the hounding I have faced for a month now, and which I see this AE report to be a part of. Tiamut (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Since starting my account here (20 years ago on June 1st), my main purpose has been to collaboratively build original content for an encyclopedia. What is User: NorthernWinds here to do? Tiamut (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Please note this comment in response to User:LumenArchivorum's comments at Teahouse. This AE report has been open forever now, and is being used to try to settle content disputes. Tiamut (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• @User:EaglesFan37, I asked NW to consider not following me to articles to avoid further clashes. But she has chosen to continue engaging on talk while I built article content there. Tiamut (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  (re this):I no longer feel welcome to edit. And I undid all my recent edits due to User:LumenArchivorum's complaints in multiple forums, which never specified on the talk page which exact passages or wording or additions were problematic. This despite my encouraging their changes and engaging them on the talk with prior to undertaking any edits. Tiamut (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Less time busying yourself with surveilling my contributions and following me primarily to engage me in talk page discussions @User:NorthernWinds would give you more time to actually edit articles. Tiamut (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• NW, can't you just admit that you have been looking at my contribs and following me places and pledge to stop? You have not had time to properly look at the sources at Talk:Languages of Palestine (or Palestinian identity before that), busy as you are with discussions at Talk:Zionism. And yet you chose to go to both to obstruct my additions, only after I expressed interest/began editing them.Tiamut (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

1. I don't think that's an accurate characterization of what they said, but still believe Tiamut's commentary was unnecessary here.

2. This was in relation to GordanGlottal disputing that Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas was Palestinian despite reliable sources describing her as such. While Tiamut could've obviously approached this dispute differently, after reading the discussion for context, I wouldn't say that characterization was entirely inaccurate.

3. That's a statement that Tiamut opposed the split & that they see the subsequent rescoping required to separate Jews from Palestine as being segregationist. "opt to" in "opt to re-merge" means "prefer to re-merge", not a threat of action.

4. Tiamut specified 6 minutes after NorthernWinds replied that they were referring to this comment where NorthernWinds repeatedly referred to the scope through a national framing. NorthernWinds even thanked them for substantiating their comment.

5. In context, this reads to me as a broader statement of exasperation over the prolonged dispute over the article rather then a remark against NorthernWinds specifically. The ongoing dispute has repeatedly attempted to scrutinize & categorize Palestinians to a degree I don't think would be warranted for any cultural identity. I'd say that the talk page is an inappropriate place to express such broad frustrations though.

6. This full sentence "This is soapboxing/POV pushing that evades the point regarding the multiple meanings of Palestine." was in response to this comment. When asked why Palestinians have to be split across separate pages, but Jews don't, NorthernWinds replied with several paragraphs on the long history of Jews in Palestine.

7. In reply to quotes referring to the history of the Palestinian identity going back to Roman Palestine that NorthernWinds requested, they focused exclusively on the sentence "There is no way to understand this identity apart from the conflict" & dismissed the rest as inappropriate to cover the historical continuity & removed material cited to it as "fabricated and not in the source".

8. Jesus' characterization as Palestinian had a surplus of sources supporting it, so I don't see what issue NorthernWinds has with Tiamut stating they also hold this belief.

9. It in itself isn't an RS, but if it's a significant perspective it should indeed be considered. To consider something "inoffensive to most interested parties" is the goal of building a consensus. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC) (Rephrased upon asilvering's request) - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tamzin - While I disagree with much of Tiamut's interpretation of ethnicity as a concept & would agree that this comment was inappropriate, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to characterize it as antisemitic. They've been rather consistent on this matter, stating in that same discussion that 'Jews are an "ethnic group" in the way Arabs are an "ethnic group"', & that they "don't like using the word "ethnic group" for either." The same reasoning as this disagreement with me at Palestinians, so it's clear they aren't holding some double standard based in bigotry. I'll also state that I interpreted said comment as an attempt to empathize with Slava570's concern, considering Tiamut's recent experience "having [their] identity narrative being questioned". - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

May something at least be done to remedy NorthernWinds' continued hounding of Tiamut? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I just want to say that none of these diffs can be understood without looking at what went before them and what they refer to. That will usually give a different impression. Mostly they express NorthernWind's frustration at not being able to get their way. Zero^talk 14:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There is almost nothing to see here and this case should be closed with at most a warning. Topic bans would be far more severe than any evidence presented here can support. Zero^talk 05:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, Slava570 is 100% mistaken in believing that the phrase "identity narrative" implies that a story is fake. As it explains right at the start of narrative, the word can be applied to stories that may be either fictional or non-fictional. When the role that a story plays within a culture is studied, phrases like "identity narrative" are used by experts in order to avoid tackling the question of the historical facts behind the story. All cultures, all ethnic groups, and all nations have their "identity narratives", and Tiamut is a sophisticated editor who uses phrases like this correctly. Zero^talk 13:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Maltazarian

I contemplated whether or not to comment, but I suppose I should since I was extensively involved in the build-up to this AE, when I was trying (and failing, obviously) to facilitate the building of a consensus that addresses the concerns of both NorthernWinds and Tiamut. I'm only going to comment on the list-related matters as that's where I was involved.

I think it's important for the diffs on the list articles/pages to be contextualized. While not an excuse for any potentially uncivil behaviour, it needs to be known that they are part of a long series of exhausting, at times bitter and quite often deadlocked discussions (most to all of: ) that would frustrate most editors. It also didn't help that other editors weren't really able to keep up with NorthernWinds and Tiamut towards the end of C, and that includes myself. Even though it's not wrong for them to simply continue talking to each other, I do feel it ended up having a WP:BLUDGEON-like effect, and with no outside input there wasn't much of a way for the two to stop being at loggerheads.

Comments on individual diffs:

Northernwinds:

3a. I concur with Butterscotch Beluga.

5a. That may not have been directed specifically at the comment by NW that it's indented under; I've noticed Tiamut occasionally puts another comment under her most recent reply in a thread, and they're not always direct replies to the thing her most recent reply was.

7a. Neither user is WP:AGF in that exchange.

1c. This is mostly poor communication exacerbated by the animosity already present on that talk page.

3c. This wasn't the best way to get outside input for the conversation, but I'm sad to see it wasn't taken as an opportunity to invite even more outside input.

Tiamut:

3. Going off my experience this is a very accurate statement (the comment here, not the diff).

4. Tons of reverts were done prior to discussion at the list articles, which isn't unusual.

I find it disheartening that this has gone to AE, but I can't say I'm surprised. Sorry I couldn't help figure something out.
⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Paprikaiser:

The splitting proposal, not RfC, was done with the understanding that further discussion on scope was needed post-split. WP:SPLITCLOSE allows involved editors to close split proposals with clear outcomes. The only potential issue with the close was that a week had not yet elapsed, but as nobody in the discussion objected I don't see how this is a big deal; there was a consensus.

The part about inconsistent inclusion criteria leaves out that the origin of the dispute (e.g. ) is disagreement over how the fact Palestine/Palestinian has a complicated history should be handled; in comparison, Jew is relatively uncomplicated. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 23:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tiamut I wasn't saying a list of Jews from Palestine is less complicated than a general one; I was referring to "List of Palestinians", the subject of the diff linked by Paprikaiser. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 15:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by GordonGlottal

• @Vanamonde93 I wasn't planning to weigh in here but it is not true that I was following Tiamut around and I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that whatsoever. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde This is complete nonsense. What are you talking about? I edited Gauze before Tiamut ever did, and Golan Heights when Tiamut hadn't edited it in six months (she immediately returned to make a frivolous accusation of "misleading edit summary". I explained to her how i got to Aramaic square script, which is much more my usual kind of page than hers. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  @black kite Tiamut has been on wiki much longer than me. So far as I know, tiamut has only accused me of following her to Golan heights and Aramaic square script, and anyone who looks at the edit history for those pages can see that neither is true. Yes vanamonde - I was talking to her on those pages! This is absurd. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I had no idea that I was still be discussed here until now, please give me a couple of days to respond because I am very very busy on weekends. I am absolutely astonished at the way you are characterizing my edits. In that conversation I was never until the very end (when I gave up) the only editor objecting to Tiamut and Tiamut never had another editor on her side. I posted to WP:3O, which is a pretty incredible thing for a stonewaller to do. I have thousands of ARBPIA edits in prodcutive concert with many other editors of all stripes. Anyway I have to sign off now but I will repond fully later. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Paprikaiser

I reviewed the interactions underlying this filing and found conduct concerns by the filer. This filing came shortly after Tiamut indicated her intention to file a case against NorthernWinds, giving rise to retaliatory concerns.

In Talk:List of Palestinians#Splitting proposal, NorthernWinds was involved, !voted, and then closed the discussion in favor of their own !vote's position, citing Near unanimous consensus, although the RfC had only been open for three days and multiple editors had raised scope and criteria concerns. This is the second time NorthernWinds appears to have made an improper close in this CTOP.

After no consensus had been established to split List of people from Palestine (historical region), NorthernWinds created the disputed Jewish list anyway, then argued AfD could pick up where the prior discussion ended. They then told Tiamut that Out of 5 editors, 4 endorsed this page while you opposed it. This is what's called "near-unanimous consensus" and directed her to WP:1AM. But Katzrockso clarified: I did not endorse the creation of this page, I opposed the creation of more ethnic lists, and, when NorthernWinds suggested AfD, asked: Why would you create an article and then propose it be nominated for AfD? That sounds like fait accompli as a no consensus result is likely to result from most contentious discussions in this topic area. NorthernWinds also made rapid title changes and told Tiamut to go for an RM or RfD if those changes were insufficient. They later acknowledged the related renaming was disruptive.

For List of Palestinians, NorthernWinds objected that the Mandate-and-after list had no source on any of the subjects confirming that they identify as Palestinian. But when defining a proposed Jewish-related list, they accepted broader criteria, including Jews born in Palestine, known for being from it, or who made Aliyah, and argued: I don't need RS to define a list that I am making. This shows inconsistent inclusion-criteria standards.

Regarding aspersions/WP:AGF, NorthernWinds warned إيان after a disagreement, saying: Please stop implying bias, or else this ""POV"" of yours about WP:PA will unfortunately be taken by someone to AE. In the same exchange, إيان objected to the double standard: if I use the word "POV" it's an "accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence," [...] but if you use the word "POV", it's "in a literal sense". This is part of a broader pattern in the List of Palestinians and related discussions, where NorthernWinds personalized disputes and warned others over conduct framing that they also used themselves. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

NorthernWinds points out that the initial wording to إيان was later struck, but my concern remains with the initial framing and the broader pattern (e.g., ). Paprikaiser (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EaglesFan37

Even in the middle of this AE case, the dispute between NorthernWinds and Tiamut has continued unraveling. . This has been going on, by the looks of it, for nearly a month at this point. Outside of a two-way WP:IBAN, I'm not exactly sure how this gets resolved. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds None of those diffs help your case much. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

At Talk:Languages of Palestine, NorthernWinds and Tiamut continue to have content disputes that start to become less focused about content. , , , . EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds @Tiamut My primary concern is that this has been going on for a month now and has resulted in back-and-forths between you two on several different talk pages that veer into WP:NPA. @Maltazarian summed it up really well in their comments. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Slava570

Hi, that I am aware of this is my first time ever dealing with Tiamut. I got into a discussion with them on NorthernWinds's talk page. The discussion was about what I consider their fringe view that Jews are not an ethnic group. In response to my (I think) reasonable comment about Hebrew being a lingua franca they responded saying that I was "defensive" because "my identity narrative [was] being questioned." (I had said nothing about my identity up to this point). I responded saying they should not bring that up . They said if I don't like their responses I'm "free to disengage" . Then I replied saying they should not write off my comments because of my identity, citing WP:PARTISANS After that, the conversation basically went back on track for a while, and we ended up discussing some sources. However, the sources they provided in no way backed up their claim that Jews are not an ethnicity. I maintain that this is a fringe view. I realize the sanction sought here is PIA, but in my opinion, unless they walk back this view, I believe they should not be editing articles related to Jews and Judaism, as this shows a basic lack of understanding of the topic. Slava570 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm still very concerned about something which I consider the most egregious aspect of all this, and that is the use of a harmful fringe view. What is scary to me is that people are reading Tiamut's comments and are being convinced that the view is a valid dissenting view. Fringe views are not the same thing as minority/dissenting views. Huldra's comments are largely tangential to what I'm talking about. Nazi racial categories (Aryan/Semite) are now obsolete.

For example, Tiamut posted a link to a study claiming Jews are not an ethnic group, but a look at the study finds numerous instances of the exact opposite. One example of many: p. 3 "Jews have historically been regarded as a racial, ethnic, and religious group." Overall, it's nuanced, and I can't get into everything here, but it cannot be clearer. Yet Tiamut linked this study as evidence that Its not fringe or uncommon. Is it not in itself disruptive to attribute the opposite view to a source? It takes a large amount of effort to then go into a source, only to find out it doesn't say what they say it says. And this particular view is not only fringe, but harmful to the Jewish people. Without commenting on the intention, the result is erasure and bigotry against Jews. This was why I brought it up, and Tiamut responded by dismissing my argument because of my ethnicity. Slava570 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Smallangryplanet: Despite several people's attempt to sugarcoat it, the "identity narrative" comment is more offensive to me than if Tiamut had only said she was dismising my comment because I was Jewish (which would also have been offensive). "Narrative" here implies that it's not a real identity, but fake, one that I tell myself is true because it makes me feel good or because I have an agenda. This is a major part of bigotry against Jews. Slava570 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think NorthernWinds's contribution to the Zionism page has been invaluable and irreplacable. If there is any way to exclude administrative action from that page, Wikipedia would be better off IMO. Slava570 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I hadn't planned participating in this WP:AE, but I must react to Tanzim's addition. After more than 20 years editing in the IP area, I still could not give you a definition of "Jew" or "Jewish": it means different for different people. We even have a (loooong) article called Who is a Jew?. For the state of Israel's s´"law of return" you are counted as Jewish if only 1 of your 4 grandparents were Jewish. But once in Israel, you are not allowed to marry a Jew, unless your mother was Jewish (or you have converted). I think it was Norman Finkelstein who once stated that being Jewish was a religion, until Nazism made it a race. (As I am sure most of you know: it made no difference at all to Nazis, if a Jew had converted, say to Christianity; they were still Jewish according to the Nazis "race laws". Interestingly, it makes a difference for the state of Israel: if you have converted, you are no longer considered a Jew. Which makes for the interesting case, that you could have been a concentration camp survivor, and still be rejected Israeli citizenship, eg Oswald Rufeisen, or this guy)

As for Tamzin's essay, Wikipedia:Hate_is_disruptive#Appropriate_remedies, can we use that against all the editors who have noted Tiamuts Palestinian identity? As I recall, there have been some... I have been called "Palestinian", "Arab-European", "married to an Arab", etc, etc, but I have never thought of asking for a topic-ban for the editor who calls me that. (Though I did go to the WP:AN when a guy insisted on his right calling me he/him, as being female is the one identity I display on my user-page). In short: Tamzin's sensitivity in these matters is no good basis for rules in the IP area, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Tamzin: I wouldn't dream of ever reporting the fact that some editor refer to me as "Palestinian", "Arab-European", "married to an Arab", etc,. For a start: I am neither "Palestinian", nor "Arab-European", nor "married to an Arab". When editors write that about me; I just roar with laughter. (Which isn't often I have a chance to do, editing in the IP area...) . And if anyone would get my facts right (which would surprise me, as I, AFAIK, have never disclosed my marital status or ethnicity on wp) I would still laugh, (as I am quite comfortable with both by ethnicity and marital status).

User:Slava570: my point was that various people/states/organisations refer to "Jews" both as an ethnicity and as a religion. Take the state of Israel: if a person is an atheist/agnostic, and not a member of any church, mosque or synagogue, BUT has 1 Jewish grandparent; then that person is eligible of Israeli citizenship, under Israels "law of return". So the state of Israel clearly recognise "race", or "ethnicity", or call it what you want. Clearly not the Nazi "race laws", but still based on genetics. But if that person convert, say to Islam or Christianity: they are no longer eligible for Israeli citizenship. (if anyone can find a logic in that: then please explain it to me, 'cause I can't find it! But then human laws are not based on logic.)

This is getting sidetracked by the real issue: Tiamut is challenged on her identity almost every single day: eg editors stating that someone has to declare themselves as "Palestinian", in order to be counted on the List of Palestinians. Funnily enough, no such declarations is demanded of other nationalities. Say, Michelangelo is not required to have declared himself to be Italian, in order for him to be listed on the List of people from Italy, etc, etc, But of course, for some, there are no such thing as Palestinians. Too bad for those who identify as Palestinian, Huldra (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

Tamzin and Vanamonde93: English isn't my mother tongue, and I don't have any post-secondary education in it, but I feel that Tiamut's most controversial statement containing the phrase "your identity narrative" can be interpreted in two ways, depending on whether "your" attaches to "identity" or to "identity narrative":

• 1) [[your identity] narrative], meaning "the narrative about your identity", which in this case might be a reference to Slava's Jewish identity.
• 2) [your [identity narrative]], meaning "the identity narrative that you advance", which is an attack on Slava's line of argument, not their identity.

VR 04:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Smallangryplanet

@Tamzin: I am - since we're talking about identity in this case - a Jewish Wikipedian and I agree completely with Tiamut's objection to racial/genetic and monolithic uses of "ethnicity", which doesn't deny Jewish peoplehood.diff 1 Our page on Antisemitic tropes does mention, time and time again, the ways in which perceiving Jews as a separate race has been used to persecute us, insisting there's only one specific kind of Jewish ethnicity is often used to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Jews who do not meet a particular (almost always white-european) mold. Tiamut's view extends to all groups. She wrote that Jews are an "ethnic group" in the way Arabs are an "ethnic group", while adding she dislikes the term for both.diff 2 She has made the same point before: There is no such thing as an "ethnic" Palestinian (in my opinion) while distinguishing that from modern Palestinian national identity diff 3,diff 4

The Slava570 comment is also being inflated (as pointed out by others). Tiamut did not say "your Jewishness" or "your identity", but your identity narrative, meaning the conception of Jewish identity being debated. diff 5 The defensiveness phrasing was poor, and she apologized.

What concerns me most is the erasure of broader context. This discussion arose from editors repeatedly questioning, minimizing, and in some cases outright erasing Palestinian identity across the List of Palestinians page and related disputes. NorthernWinds and other editors demanded narrow identification criteria for Palestinians but accepted much broader ones for Jewish lists, as Paprikaiser noted. NorthernWinds also recently said Tiamut's side in the discussions exhibits nationalistic editing, diff 5 and after Tiamut responded that while she is Palestinian she is nevertheless guided by consensus/NPOV, diff 6 NorthernWinds said that some biases are hard to avoid and that this still has an effect on your editing. The caveats do not change the substance of attributing bias to another editor based on her Palestinian identity and linking it to her editing. diff 7 I see that as a fairly clear questioning of an editor's objectivity in relation to identity. I appreciate the comments about dismissing the two party rule here and I share Tiamut's frustration that the hounding is not being properly addressed, and I hope admins also consider the comments minimizing and questioning Palestinian identity. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Although I don't agree with it (I think that race and ethnicity are hazy concepts to begin with but that they reasonably apply here as much as they do anywhere) the objection to the idea of a Jewish race or ethnicity premised on "well that's the definition the Nazis used" is not so fringe that it ought to be sanctionable; it is an argument I have heard professors make before in person. And it's one that has been made in academic publications, eg. . It is definitely a minority view, and one that has to be raised cautiously as an argument for reasons that this discussion makes extremely clear, in addition to WP:FORUM issues (even people like Corcos who make that argument usually do so as part of a larger effort to pull the thread on the concept of race as a whole; the second link goes into even more depth on this), but I don't think it's so shocking as to be sanctionable simply for making that argument, when similar arguments have been presented in academic literature by scholars who, while perhaps not representing the majority, can't reasonably be called wildly WP:FRINGE, either. It is a fact that "that's the categorization the Nazis used, so we shouldn't use it" is an argument that has been put forward by reasonably respected scholars in academic publications. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

Generally on tiamut side and think there wasnt an attempt to intentionally attack identity, but popping in to state that it is still fairly hurtful to be told an ethnic group isnt real in the same way as being telling someone you are race blind and dont see race.Perhaps not intentionally, but it is definitely a micro aggression. Yeah race and ethnicity are arbitrary social constructs but that make them any less real lived experiences User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I get the whole idea nazis made the jewish ethnic identity, same way christian enslavers made a black race to categorize a widely diverse group of folks. But that doesnt change the self conception of folks or that its a real identity with real history. (Also im not a sociologist so not gonna even pretend i am an authority on any of this) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

edit: that doesnt make them any less real lived experiences

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by LumenArchivorum

(re this): Yes, Tiamut’s recent actions have raised concerns. First, the style of writing and selection of material appear to deviate from NPOV and come across as advocacy rather than encyclopedic . Second, the communication has felt combative, like when I sought advice at the Teahouse about how to handle a potential dispute, they joined that discussion in a similarly combative manner and later posted on my talk page to criticize me for seeking that advice.

Most importantly, the consensus we reached on the talk page for Languages of Palestine has not been followed. Making substantial and rapid changes on such a sensitive topic while discussion is ongoing does not seem collaborative. I would appreciate a return to a consensus-based approach and a more neutral and constructive tone moving forward. LumenArchivorum (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

(re this): I do not think it is okey that any editor feels they must avoid certain articles or talk pages due to another editor. In my experience, interactions with you have been combative, and ongoing consensus-building discussions have been ignored. Additionally, responses to criticism have come across as reactive rather than constructive. I would encourage a more collaborative approach that supports open participation and respects consensus-building processes. Perhaps best if you stay away from articles you have too strong feelings about so you can remain neutral. Forgive my technical inability to link to all the different comments, I still have much to learn on Wiki. However, I am not making a complicated claim, just skimming the talkpage in question is clear, not neutral and not really collaborative, the teahouse and my userpage just shows pattern of behavior.

LumenArchivorum (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Statement by ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen

Tiamut has linked this graph. The #1 spot by far is this very page, followed by four talk pages that we'd been active in discussions on. The sixth spot is my talk page (I've never been on hers). The end of the list is padded by things she hasn't edited for over a decade.

"Deletion of large sections of user talk page possibly to remove it from being filled with criticism." Am I not allowed to remove sections from my talk page after the discussion is over? Is that a policy, or is the implication that "possibly" it was nefarious is enough to make me look bad?

I haven't Hounded. Tiamut accused me of that after I went to Holy Fire, she warned me and we haven't bumped into each other anywhere since. As for calling my contributions "uniformly negative" that's nonsense. I've added a wide variety of information to both Middle Eastern and unrelated articles. Her accusation is based on literally one instance of us both editing a small article.

I asked Tiamut if she was coordinating with others offline because she and Zero were both being contentious with me on the Al Maqdisi article. Zero had been caught coordinating with others offline to push a specific political angle(Gang of 40). That isn't speculation, it's fact. So asking if it is still happening is a personal attack? When I got my answer, I dropped it.

I could go through each accusation individually to show they are bad faith representations, but I'll address only one more: The Palestinian Christian discussion. I wanted to change the wording to Christians of Palestine because we were talking about something from over a thousand years ago, before any nation-states existed.

It reminds me of how Tiamut and another now banned editor Nishidani (who was caught coordinating offline to push a specific political angle with Zero and others) kept trying to label Jesus as a Palestinian across multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

[to Zero0000] I wanted to include both the International Committee of Jurists and the International Court of Justice. You said I accused another editor of using AI, when in fact I ASKED if they did. It's a fact that people have been using AI on Wikipedia. Zero and Tiamut have both recently been given official warnings to avoid the exact kind of battleground behavior they are showing here.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

[to Luka MagLc] "Direct edit to Multifunctional Reconnaissance Company on 6 June 2026, & 13 June 2026 removing sourced content with no valid rationale. Which the the edits led to this now removed talk page decision [147]"

I removed a redundant sentence. Another editor reverted and made a comment on the talk page asking why. I explained why, then that editor undid their revert. Not me, the editor who originally disagreed with me was convinced by my explanation and did the revert themselves. Isn't that good editing?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

who was caught coordinating offline to push a specific political angle with Zero and others

@ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen: I don't recall this. Would you please link to what you are referring to (assuming you mean something previously noted on Wikipedia)? (If you are referring to something that has been purportedly revealed only off-wiki, please instead email it to me, as it sounds like it would likely include information like off-site profiles that shouldn't be publicly revealed per WP:DOX.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5

There is where the evidence of off site coordination was shared. You can find off-site sources by searching Gang of 40 Wikipedia. Also note multiple administrators made record of Zero's uncivil behavior including "amending benign comments into personal attacks" which is what is happening here repeatedly. ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There wasn't any evidence presented in WP:PIA5 of Zero engaging in off-site coordination, so this is a rather serious unfounded aspersion. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's a big document. | This source names him as a "Gang of 40 leader" So it's a fact he coordinated with other users off-site to push a specific political viewpoint. I don't know if he's still doing it, but it was reasonable for me to ask. Him, Tiamut, and Sean.hoyland showed up in the Talk pages of multiple pages I went to and all told me "no no no" without seeming to even read what I wrote. So it seemed like coordination, and possibly AI.

All three editors have long documented histories of edit waring. But I'm not the one trying to get other users banned.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

This editor's contribution to PIA is uniformly negative and time-wasting. Sorry if these diffs have overlap with OP's.

• accuses an editor having an agenda
• steadfastly refuses to allow the link Palestinian Christians in an article where that group of people is manifestly relevant.
• Another baseless accusation of AI use.
• Talk:Al-Maqdisi#Deleting_info_summarized_in_the_lead (multiple edits). This editor has a serious problem with the concept "Palestinian" and endlessly argued against an early sourced example of that concept. Among his stunts was to mistranslate the dialogue "'are you Egyptian' ... 'no, Palestinian'" as "'are you from Egypt' ... 'no, Palestine'", thereby turning a geographical identification into a mere place of origin. During this "discussion" he brought exactly zero sources in support.
• Talk:Palestinians#Original_research? (multiple edits) Repeatedly argues against quoting the International Committee of Jurists solely on the grounds that they have the same initials as the International Court of Justice.

Zero^talk 15:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Add this new aspersion: "Zero had been caught coordinating with others offline", which incidentally is an absolute lie. Now he claims this was evidence in PIA5, but look in vain there because it doesn't exist.
• He claims above "I wanted to include both the International Committee of Jurists and the International Court of Justice." What he actually wrote was "I'm going to remove reference to any ICJ that isn't the International Court of Justice." and never suggested including both. Moreover, he actually removed one of them from the article at least 4 times. Here is the most recent. This is a good illustration of why working with this editor is impossible and we would be much better off without him.

Zero^talk 02:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This editor's dishonesty just on this page is enough for an indef. Zero^talk 05:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Luka Maglc

I as well was just about to make a report on this user here is what I gathered.

Diffs of ECR violations (direct edits to Arab-Israel articles after being warned most of which has been reverted):

• (, ,) – Direct edits to IDF Caterpillar D9 on 6 June 2024 (leading to a ECR warning on 9 June 2024)
• – Direct edit to Palestinians on 15 June 2026 (clearly after warnings)
• – Direct edit to Holy Fire on 14 June 2026 with POV edit summary: "2,000 years of Palestinian nationalism? Your own beliefs shouldn't keep being pushed".
• (, , ) – Direct edit to Nakba on 4 December 2025, & 13 June 2026 removing sourced content with no valid rationale. Which the the edits led to this now removed talk page decision
• (Killing of Ahmad Erekat , Ahmed Mohamed clock incident ) – Edit waring on both the Killing of Ahmad Erekat (going back to November 2025) & the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (going back to 10 May 2026), being warned by multiple editors in the edit summaries and led me to warn them here on their talk page

Prior warnings (explicit):

• 1 January 2024 – Alert from ScottishFinnishRadish (an admin) about contentious topics and ECR
• 30 January 2024 – ScottishFinnishRadish: "You cannot make edits that relate to the Palestine/Israel conflict except for edit requests on the talk pages of articles. If you continue to do this you will be blocked from editing."
• 9 June 2024 – ScottishFinnishRadish: "If you continue to violate WP:ECR as you did at IDF Caterpillar D9 you will be blocked"
• 9 June 2024 – Selfstudier warning for violating ECR on talk page
• after which they got these warnings they started to edit related articles that aren't directly related to the Isreal-Palestinian restrictions, as soon as they got extend conformed rights on 24 November 2025 they immediately targeted Isreal-Palestinian articles the same day.

Additional conduct issues (tendentious editing, bad faith):

• High revert rate: ~101 of ~530 article edits tagged as reverted (~20%), indicating systematic resistance to consensus.
• Accusations of AI/coordinated cabal against other editors without evidence: from user talk page "Not necessary" section. Which they then delete the edits from this user
• wikihounding accusation from user Tiamut: where Tiamut says "majority of your edits recently are following me to various articles to revert my edits".
• – Mass vandalism of the Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park which led to a warning on their talk page from VeryRarelyStable which they instantly reverted (,} and then reverted the users fix of their vandalism on the article.
• () – Direct edit to Multifunctional Reconnaissance Company on 6 June 2026, & 13 June 2026 removing sourced content with no valid rationale. Which the the edits led to this now removed talk page decision
• Deletion of large sections of user talk page to possibly to remove it from being filled with criticism: (,,,,,,,,,,,). I have reconstructed their full talk page if anyone wants it just ask. Luka Maglc(talk) 22:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• I do want to make it known that ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen deleted a response from this AE here () which was made to directly to SarekOfVulcan, and SarekOfVulcan moved it to statement by ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen here ()Luka Maglc(talk) 01:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

"It's also a fact you coordinated offline with other editors to push a political narrative." - I mean, being able to distinguish between fact and fiction seems like a basic requirement for editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen, you have been tricked into believing and spreading a defamatory conspiracy theory (that resembles an antisemitic trope) about Wikipedia and its editors that (cynically in my view) exploits and monetizes the gullibility and attention of susceptible Israel supporters traumatized by Oct 7. Susceptibility to these kinds of exploitative and dishonest disinformation vectors is very clearly negatively impacting your interactions with editors. External partisan actors try to exert influence over Wikipedia content and processes by exploiting on-wiki actors. This causes disruption and conflict in the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Paprikaiser

I came across this while looking for the appropriate noticeboard to report this user for his behavior in Killing of Ahmad Erekat. To be brief, ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen has spent months edit-warring to remove the forensic methodologies used by Forensic Architecture in their investigation of the killing, initially claiming no reliable secondary sources covered them. When multiple mainstream sources were explicitly provided, he continuously shifted his objections to block the text, moving from complaints about jargon, to dismissing a reliable analysis as an "opinion piece" written for an "explicitly pro-Palestinian" outlet, incorrectly claiming the reporter had a degree in journalism when they actually hold a master's degree in Research/Forensic Architecture, something that had already been pointed out to him.

Several editors have expressed dissatisfaction and reverted his disruptions, yet my attempts to reach a compromise have been met with a complete refusal to work collaboratively. For example, in his latest response, he claimed he simply wanted to remove "confusing words like synchronization", entirely ignoring that this exact word was stripped from the compromise draft weeks ago in a direct effort to accommodate him. He has shown no interest in collaborating, ignoring clear policy, failing to read the text of the discussions, and using the talk page to stall and exhaust community patience until other editors give up. This behavior, combined with the bizarre attacks made throughout this report, and the multiple examples of disruptiveness, shows that he is unfit for not only this topic but the encyclopedia as a whole. The project would benefit from an indefinite block. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll

Count me in as another person who was considering reporting this editor. In my case, it was initially for their tendentious edit-warring at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident , which then led me to some of their other terrible edits at Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park (both mentioned by Luka Maglc but maybe not all the diffs). --JBL (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I am a bit shocked to see that ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen thinks that what Ashley Rindsberg (AR) writes about "the gang of 40" is correct. FYI: AR took 40 of the most active users in the IP are, and who were deemed "anti-Israeli", and at the same time wrote about the Tech for Palestine (T4P) workgroup on Discord. The T4P group had some 260 edits on 114 articles, and yes, they collaborated off-wiki. And were all banned. AR then conflates the two groups (!); stating all over that "the gang of 40" colluded off-wiki!! (NB: I'm one of the 40, and the AR statement is simply not true). That ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen takes AR's rubbish for "The Truth"", makes me seriously doubt their cognitive faculties, Huldra (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)