User talk:NorthernWinds

Hello! I am assuming you have come over from the English Wikipedia, so you are probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few links to help you adjust:

• An English Wikipedian's guide
• Writing in Simple English
• Simple talk: our help desk, reference desk and village pump- in one page
• How to copy from English Wikipedia

There is much to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that do not exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you would like to do. Thank you for joining us! If you need any help, be sure to visit Simple Talk or contact an administrator. Happy changing! Barras talk 14:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Barras Thanks! NorthernWinds (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please do not make unhelpful changes to Wikipedia. The changes you made seem to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Polygnotus,

I have reverted this change which removed well-sourced information and seemed to me like vandalism. Later, in following a concern raised in talk, I have looked at the changes you have made again, remade the legitimate changes. Now, upon further inspection, I see some of the things I have re-added were misplaced (Specifically, the JSP allegations in the violence section, which now I see have nothing to do with the subject. Still, what you removed here and called "propaganda" is not truly "propaganda", as Responses to 7 October: Law and Society published by academic publisher routledge has shown. Perhaps the wording can change to left-wing Academia rather than just academia. However, I think the information is relevant enough to be present in the article and not be removed entirely. Please re-add the information

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We are not going to introduce far-right propaganda with a bunch of en:WP:SYNTH problems of course. The claim is not supported by sources and no one who knows what those words mean would agree with it, except those who believe in far-right propaganda. This ain't en:Conservapedia or Infogalactic. Polygnotus (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Polygnotus

Please do not WP:ATTACK and please do assume good faith. "far-right propaganda" would not make its way to one of the most reputable publishers in the world. I do see some problematic sources which should be removed but statements supported by academic sources should be added. NorthernWinds (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure what you are talking about. It sounds like we are talking about 2 different things. I am talking about the obviously false claim that Hamas is popular with "western" academia. Also the JSP allegations were of course nonsense, and offtopic. And then you wrote: Perhaps the wording can change to left-wing Academia. Was that a joke? Polygnotus (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Polygnotus,

Please comply with WP:CIVIL

I was talking about the same info you removed in the edit I linked, which is the same one you talked about. The validity of the JSP's allegations are a matter of opinion, and everyone are entitled to their own. As I said earlier, I agree with you that it is off-topic and should not be listed. As for Hamas's popularity, it is not "right left propaganda". you can read about it in Freedman, Rosa; Hirsh, David (29 May 2024). "From the River to the Sea". Responses to 7 October: Law and Society. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003497417. ISBN 9781003497417. NorthernWinds (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can send me the PDF and a pagenumber. But even if that book would say that, which I strongly doubt of course, then the book would be far-right propaganda and therefore unusable. Like I said before: no one who knows what those words mean would agree with it, except those who believe in far-right propaganda. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Polygnotus

Please, this is the second time I am asking you to comply with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL

I cannot send you the book since it would violate WP:CR. I have provided in my original response the chapter, that is From the River to the Sea (pages 42-51). Why are you dismissing a reputable source? NorthernWinds (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@NorthernWinds Why are you asking me to comply with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK when nothing I said was incivil or an attack and I did not "fail" to assume good faith?

This is the third time you did this, and it seems like an intentional tactic to act as if I did something wrong which is clearly not the case. So please explain where I did not assume good faith or attack you or was incivil?

It is either not a reputable source or it doesn't say that, and I am basically certain that the book doesn't support the claim. Why do you refuse to show evidence? Quoting a book is not a violation of copyright. My email is polygnotuswiki %insert the 'at' symbol here% gmail.com Polygnotus (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Polygnotus,

I believe saying things such as We are not going to introduce far-right propaganda ...The claim is not supported by sources and no one who knows what those words mean would agree with it, except those who believe in far-right propaganda knowing I am the one who restored the information in question is an attempt to recognize me with right-wingers and say I follow propaganda, in contract with "people who know what the words mean" like you suggested you do.

Asking me Was that a joke? was uncivil of you and a violation of WP:AGF

But even if that book would say that, which I strongly doubt of course Suggesting I am lying with no basis, in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

Again, for the fourth time, I am asking you to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

I will not share my email with you, I have quoted the book elsewhere in this conversation. You have asked me to send you a PDF, not quote the book. When you asked me to quote I did.

It is either not a reputable source or it doesn't say that Just because it does not agree with your opinion does not mean it is not a reputable source NorthernWinds (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

is an attempt to recognize me with right-wingers and say I follow propaganda?? No, that is not what I said. If I meant that I would've said that. You are not a book. I was talking about a book, not about a person.

WP:AGF is about assuming good faith, so how can asking "Was that a joke?" not be assuming good faith? That does not make sense to me. It isn't bad to make jokes. It is also not an uncivil question, it is just a question you can answer with "yes it was a joke haha" or "no it was not a joke". On the internet it is very difficult to tell if someone is joking, especially via text. We cannot hear eachothers voice, or see facial expressions.

Suggesting I am lying with no basis I didn't suggest that you were lying. I said that a book did not make a particular claim. I do not think you have written that book.

Again, for the fourth time, I am asking you to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL From now on I am gonna interpret your repeated requests to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, while I am doing exactly that, as impolite. It feels like you are falsely accusing me of being impolite, while I am polite, and that is not very nice. So I am gonna ask you to stop that now. Thank you. I am polite and you are too.

I will not share my email with you I did not ask you to. I gave you my email. I have quoted the book elsewhere in this conversation. Thank you I have read it. It confirmed my suspicion. You have asked me to send you a PDF, not quote the book. I wrote "You can send me the PDF" and I also wrote "Quoting a book is not a violation of copyright." so I think I did both. When you asked me to quote I did. Indeed, and that provided confirmation that the book does not support the claim made in the article, thank you.

Just because it does not agree with your opinion does not mean it is not a reputable source Correct. But in this case the book does not support the claim. So the book may or may not be a reputable source (I dunno), but it cannot be used for that claim. What the book says is different than the claim in the article. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Polygnotus

No, that is not what I said. If I meant that I would've said that. You are not a book. I was talking about a book, not about a person. Perhaps I would believe this if not for your other responses

On the internet it is very difficult to tell if someone is joking We are trying to improve an online encyclopedia, we are not engaging in a forum. But I will give you the benefit of doubt

I didn't suggest that you were lying I said the book includes it and you said you "I strongly doubt", in clear contract to what I said, suggesting I am lying

Again, for the fourth time, I am asking you to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL I would like to apologize for sayingt "fourth" instead of "second". I was referring to the second paragraph of your message

I gave you my email Which in order to utilize I would have to reveal my email...

But in this case the book does not support the claim. I have responded to this elsewhere. So the book may or may not be a reputable source The book was published by routledge, a highly respected publisher owned by Taylor & Francis NorthernWinds (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well I hope you do believe that I do not think that you are a book, or text in a Wikipedia article.

we are not engaging in a forum True, but you are still allowed to make jokes (just not in articles)! We don't have to be serious all the time.

in clear contract to what I said, suggesting I am lying That is not how that works, because there are many options other than lying. Maybe you misremembered. Maybe you misunderstood the book. Maybe it was another book. Maybe the intention of the writer of the book was different. Maybe you were imprecise. There are many possible reasons. Most of the lies people tell are not lies at all, they just half-forgot something, or misremembered, or misinterpreted et cetera. It is also possible that someone makes a mistake, and a mistake is not a lie!

Which in order to utilize I would have to reveal my email... If you use an email relay for example you can send mail from a different address. If you use relay.firefox.com you can receive mail from a different address. So for example, your emailaddress would be something like [email protected]. And if someone sends email to that address, you receive it on your address. This is a free service anyone can use. The maximum is 5 emailaddresses, unless you pay money.

A lot of people have more than 1 email address, which is useful if you don't want to give your real emailadres to a company. If you use Microsoft Outlook or Mozilla Thunderbird or another email client you can add multiple email addresses to 1 email client.

The book was published by routledge, OK, but I haven't read it personally. Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MathXplore @Fr33kman it appers that there is a problem here, would you mediate? 90.247.146.16 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can see if a reliable source says something then it can be added to the article. As for whether or not the book is a reliable source if it's published by a respected publisher then it would be a reliable source for what is contained in that book. In this case we are talking about an opinion of the author not necessarily a fact recognised by everyone. The correct way to add this information to the article is to say "In book Y, Author X claims such and such". This quotes the opinion without stating it as a fact. There is a difference between the two. I do not believe that either editor has been rude or hasn't AGF. You are both adults and are expected to work out a way to edit the article without engaging in an edit way. The one thing we will not tolerate is damage to the article. That will result in admin action. fr33kman 00:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Fr33kman,

we have solved our disagreement over conduct yesterday, thank you for giving your opinion regarding our disagreement. NorthernWinds (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Glad you came to an understanding fr33kman 01:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did some googling, and I very much doubt that he wrote that because he doesn't believe it. Polygnotus (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

For example, in page 42 it says: ...an objectively pro-Hamas Left began developing among academics in Europe, Britain, and the United States, as became apparent in 2014 during one of Hamas’ attacks on Israel. It is also said (p. 44): In short, on many campuses, Hamas supporters have transformed an organization with roots in a mixture of religious obscurantism and the politics of the extreme right into a cause celebre of the far left NorthernWinds (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That does not support the claim made in the article. It also isn't, you know, true. Polygnotus (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The book I quoted discusses the responses in law and society, it paints a picture throughout the book of the support in question. Indeed, the second quotation alone, without the first one which you have not responded to, does not support the claim. There is another volume more explicit and direct about universities (Freedman, Rosa; Hirsh, David (29 May 2024). Responses to 7 October: Universities. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-040-10160-5.), which I will now quote (page 81):

So how did parts of the academic left reframe...In part it is because a large part of the academic left...now views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of settler colonialism...It presents itself as a form of 'engaged' scholarship, but settler colonial studies also reframes and embraces a very particular form of violence - the kind of violence Hamas perpetrated on 7 October... violence without limit

I hope this clears it NorthernWinds (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

None of those 3 quotations support the claim that was in the article. Polygnotus (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

They do and the book cites many examples NorthernWinds (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, they do not. You can compare them. And again, I haven't read the book. If the book makes that claim then it is not a reliable source, and therefore cannot be used, no matter who published it. But the quotations given do not support that claim. Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

See also en:WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Polygnotus (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you are in an edit war. Take care, because the three-revert rule does not let users make more than three reverts on a single page in a single day. Any user may still be blocked for edit warring and disruption, even if they have not broken the three-revert rule. When you disagree with another user, you should first try to talk about changes in order to work together to improve Wikipedia and reach consensus. If you continue to disrupt the page, you may be blocked from changing Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC) retracted Polygnotus (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was about to add a source to the information but you reverted me immediately. Please wait a second before revering me NorthernWinds (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thing is, it is a very sensitive topic. Because one of the countries that supports Hamas is Israel of course. I'll add some info on the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I undone my revert, feel free to add a source. I will prepare some sources on the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding, I hope we continue with this path of positivity in future interactions NorthernWinds (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hm, it is complicated. Of course this was in 2024, so just after en:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. It sucks that anyone would support Hamas, but of course some people are stupid. Polygnotus (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

And sorry for overreacting, but I have had some bad experiences you know. Thanks for understanding. Polygnotus (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of course, what matters is improving Wikipedia. NorthernWinds (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You left a template on my talkpage? Why? Polygnotus (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I believe the appropriate place for this is where I left the template NorthernWinds (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, the appropriate place is the talkpage of the article. Anyway, it was already explained, on the talkpage of the Hamas article, but here it is again. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHRA_definition_of_antisemitism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Anti-Zionism_and_antisemitism and Talk:Hamas#Removal_of_ADL_statistics and all that. The Holocaust denial article is not a good place to explain the whole debate about the precise definition, why the definition is controversial, the various viewpoints and definitions used by various groups and organizations and who agrees with what and why distracts from the actual topic of the page. Polygnotus (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please reply here. And please don't use vandalism templates in a content dispute, that is frowned upon for obvious reasons. If you are unsure about something, you can just ask. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You wrote the definition of antisemitism has nothing to do with the definition of holocaust denial and with that we agree. Polygnotus (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The definition is not controversial. I have yet to find a source that states so and you have yet to provide one NorthernWinds (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is unclear what you mean? The definition of what is not controversial? I already gave you multiple links that shows that the definition of antisemitism are controversial. If you want more, you can google "definition antisemitism controversy" and you'll find many pages like https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-definition-israel-criticism. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I read your editsummary where you said You just completly removed the definition of holocaust denial but please note that most of what was in the article was actually not a definition of holocaust denial at all. It was a definition of antisemitism. So for example here on a website of the US government you can see https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/ what the IHRA definition of antisemitism at that point was. So in the article the points starting with Calling for, aiding, or justifying until Holding Jews collectively are not at all part of of that definition of holocaust denial, but of a definition of antisemitism.

The first four and the last one (Attempts to blur the responsibility) are the actual IHRA definition of holocaust denial (not antisemitism). The rest is all the IHRA definition of antisemitism, not holocaust denial. You can read 'em here, scroll down: https://www.state.gov/office-of-the-special-envoy-for-holocaust-issues/defining-holocaust-distortion-and-denial. If you read the edit you reverted you would see stuff like Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. and of course drawing such comparisons is not a defining feature of holocaust denial.

I don't really know what happened when the article was written, but as you can see it was a mess. We can stick the IHRA definitions on a IHRA page, but defining antisemitism is offtopic on the holocaust denial page of course. And it is probably unwise to give one very controversial definition preference over all others. Polygnotus (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you read the edit you reverted you would see stuff like Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis No, I would not NorthernWinds (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@NorthernWinds At this point you are making no sense at all. Go to that link you posted. Search for "comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that". Polygnotus (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me for not looking at the notes. Nevertheless this is not a reason to straight up remove the definition of a thing from the page of the thing. I was talking about the definition of holocaust denial all along and have not even once talked about the definition of antisemitism. NorthernWinds (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about the definition of holocaust denial all along and have not even once talked about the definition of antisemitism. But as you can see, in your edit what you added to the page was mostly a definition of antisemitism, not holocaust denial. And then you accuse me of vandalism. Do you understand how that comes across? I have made the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which contains their definitions. Polygnotus (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have removed legitimate definitions that are not controversial in any way shape or form as well. That has been my discussion all along, I never disputed the fact the plain antisemitism definition in controversial. NorthernWinds (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can't just keep repeating yourself if things have been explained already. I have posted a bunch of proof that these definitions (and the organisation behind them) are controversial. Basically anything related to Israel is controversial. So I do not understand what you mean. Which noncontroversial definitions did I delete that do not involve Zionism and Israel? In some cases I moved stuff to the relevant article when the same content was duplicated. But that was all related to Israel and Zionism right? You can just Google "definition controversy X", and then instead of X the word you are interested in. Polygnotus (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The controversy is concerned with the clauses about Zionism and Israel. Nowhere is there controversy regarding the other clauses. As we have came to an understanding earlier in the Hamas article and western propaganda, the sources simply do not support your claim. Such a change constitutes vandalism, so please refrain from them in the future NorthernWinds (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, falsely claiming that something is vandalism when it clearly is not is a form of personal attack, and disallowed per WP:NPA. And, as I explained, your edits reintroduced problems while my edits fixed problems.

the sources simply do not support your claim. What are you talking about? Which claim?

The controversy is concerned with the clauses about Zionism and Israel. Nowhere is there controversy regarding the other clauses. I am not sure what you mean. Polygnotus (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which claim? The claim that the message is about. the controversiality of the clause

I mean that no one disputes the definitions that are not related to Israel or Zionism. I feel like this is going nowhere, we should open a request for comment NorthernWinds (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean that no one disputes the definitions that are not related to Israel or Zionism. Do you have evidence for that extraordinary claim? Polygnotus (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The burden of proof is on you to prove there's controversy... NorthernWinds (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

But I proved that already... Multiple times. And what "definitions that are not related to Israel or Zionism" are you even talking about? Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The article says: The examples relating to Israel have been criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that they are often used to weaponize antisemitism in order to stifle free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies. High-profile controversies took place in the United Kingdom in 2011 within the University and College Union,[b] and within the Labour Party in 2018. Critics say weaknesses in the working definition may lend themselves to abuse, that it may obstruct campaigning for the rights of Palestinians, and that it is too vague.[14][15][c] Kenneth S. Stern, who contributed to the original draft, has opposed the weaponization of the definition on college campuses in ways that might undermine free speech.[17][d] The controversy over the definition led to the creation of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document, both of which expressly draw distinctions between antisemitism and criticism of Israel.[11] And like I explained the problem is not just that the definition is controversial, but mainly that all that is completely offtopic because the article is about another topic. Polygnotus (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

And again you used a vandalism template in a content dispute. I ask you to stop doing that and stay off of my talkpage. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you slow down for a second and actually read Big lie, and then read the enwiki version, you'll see that the simple wiki version was wrong. The idea is that that people are more likely to believe a massive lie than a small one because they can't imagine anyone would dare to lie about something so big. and not what the article originally said: describe the use of a lie so big that no one would believe it. Why would Hitler use a lie he thought no one would believe in? That makes no sense. Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

First of all, no. if you read the enwiki, you would see they said The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". This is supported by scholars. This too, counts as vandalism. Please refrain from such edits in the future NorthernWinds (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you keep calling improvements vandalism, despite the fact that they've been explained to you, you might get blocked per WP:NPA. So I suggest you stop doing that, thanks.

The quote you copypasted from enwiki is correct, and supports the change I made. It is proof that your edit was wrong. Polygnotus (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Look at the edit. "Your" version said to describe the use of a lie so big that no one would believe it.. Which is wrong. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was much more similar, even identical to what I was reinstating than what you said. Both our disputes are going nowhere, we should request comment. And please do not remove my edits on your talk page as long as they haven't been adressed. this conversation should occur where the tags were placed in the first place, not on my talk page NorthernWinds (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well at this point the problem is your actions, so the first place is here and the next place with be at a noticeboard is you keep editwarring and posting personal attacks. So please stop.

It was much more similar, even identical to what I was reinstating than what you said. I have no clue what you mean.

we should request comment That would be a waste of time. It is obvious that you are wrong. I am unsure why you don't just admit that and apologize. Polygnotus (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you are in an edit war. Take care, because the three-revert rule does not let users make more than three reverts on a single page in a single day. Any user may still be blocked for edit warring and disruption, even if they have not broken the three-revert rule. When you disagree with another user, you should first try to talk about changes in order to work together to improve Wikipedia and reach consensus. If you continue to disrupt the page, you may be blocked from changing Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What pronouns do you prefer? Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Having come here from the enwiki and being banned there I as informing you of our WP:ONESTRIKE policy and letting you know that you are subject to it. I have looked through the edits you have called Vandalism and I find nothing wrong with them. I'm reminding you that you still have a topic ban regarding Holocaust articles. If you wish you can contact the WMF as you threatened to do on my talk page. Regards, fr33kman 22:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

being banned there I would like to inform you that I am not banned on the English wikipedia and have edited it very recently. I am aware of WP:ONESTRIKE but am not eligible. I would also like to clarify I did not mean to issue any "threats", and only meant to suggest an alternative way of solving the issue.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I apologise, I thought you were blocked on enwiki. Obviously then :ONESTRIKE doesn't apply. I think I'm unable to help mediate further on this matter and suggest you take whatever action you feel is best. fr33kman 01:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked because you violated the requirement to not interact with Polygnotus. fr33kman 13:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I gave you permission to put forward what you wanted to change on the page, I did not give you permission to talk directly to Polygnotus. fr33kman 13:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What you described as dicuss the problem on the articles talk page in response to me reporting @Polygnotus's edits could not have happened without discussing the problem(s)... which are his edits... and cannot be discussed without him giving a reason for them. NorthernWinds (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You could have made a simple statement asking about the edits without addressing Polygnotus directly. You knew you were under an interaction ban, why would you think I would give you permission to interact? fr33kman 14:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You said Go ahead and comment about the issues on the talk page and I'll mediate it which I, reasonably so, interpreted as me commenting about the issues with you intervening in case it gets "heated". As the oxford definition says: a mediator is person who intervenes between two parties, esp. for the purpose of effecting reconciliation... NorthernWinds (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Stop pinging the other user here; this as well violates the interaction ban. Mediation is when neutral third party helps two or more individuals or groups in conflict. You did not have to ping them, you only needed to make your point and wait for other's opinion on the matter. Did not have to be the user you received interaction ban with. BRP ^ever 15:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

About what you said about mediation, I have given you the academic, oxford definition. Regarding what you said here, to me it appeared as what I said I interpreted it as, and as the dictionary citation demonstrates, it is not a far fetched interpretation at all. I am sorry for pinging them here, I did not think about that at the moment. you only needed to make your point and wait for other's opinion on the matter I did what I understood fr33k has given me permission to do, and it would be hard to "make my point" without knowing what I am addressing first. For example, see my comment on the RfD. He did not cite a policy when listing for the deletion, but he did say Most of the sources I can find are about antisemitism in country X, not about the continent as a whole so I figured the problem is sourcing deeming the article notable. As such, I have provided enough sources. But then he edited to specify that I am wrong (still not citing any policy, by the way). In order to prevent this from happening again, I began by asking him what is the rationale behind his edits. Ultimately my appeal boils down to being given permission. You have rejected it for "not addressing the original concern leading to the block" despite me directly saying I was given permission to make the changes I was banned for. NorthernWinds (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it helps to format your new unblock request better, to me it appears that fr33kman was trying to help as a mediator exactly so you wouldn't have to interact with each-other. BRP ^ever 15:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Request reason(s): I was blocked after interacting with Polygnotus despite our interaction block. I have done that after receiving what I understood as special permission from the administrator who blocked me. It now seems like there was a misunderstanding between me and the administrator. I have explained my rationale here, with further explenation here. Since the violation did not happen out of bad faith, and since I (reasonably so) thought I had permission, I believe this block should be lifted because it resulted from a misunderstanding NorthernWinds (talk) 5:34 pm, 21 July 2025, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC+1) Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): It was my intention to unblock you today as I believe that the block is no longer needed and because I believe that there was probably a genuine misunderstanding that led to the block. Please note that I made this decision prior to you filing the case with the U4C and that it has nothing to do with the case. Please note that you are still under the interaction ban.

Along with this, please note that you are also banned from editing Arab–Israeli conflict, same as enwiki. Thanks,--BRP ^ever 15:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @BRPever,

May I know the reason and/or policy I've violated? am I still under restriction in antisemitism-related pages?

Also, Polygnotus's topic-ban was forgiven as "your [Polygnotus's] edits are clearly not the problem" following my ban. This seems to suggest (assuming validity of what was said in the unban) that my perceived interaction ban violations render Polygnotus's edits in mainspace not problematic somehow. Since the ban was lifted, does it mean he is getting the (so far) unenforced topic-ban reinstated?

@Fr33kman I don't understand why would you wait a week before unblocking me if you thought there was a misunderstanding. The other possible explanation is that you have recently changed your mind, but I find it hard to believe since there is no reason that you would revisit this (let a lone revisit this a week later). Could you provide more insight into your decision to unblock? Currently I find it hard to believe the unblock was not motivated by the report. I hope you can understand me

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I simply had a think about it and decided that the block was no longer required. As for the time frame of a week I was permitting time for other admins to review my actions. I can assure you that it has/had nothing to do with the U4C case in any way. I decided to unblock you prior to you informing me of the case and the timing had more to do with me being busy in real life. Regards fr33kman 20:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid any more edits to Arab–Israeli conflict or any related pages. There are plenty of other areas to edit, so insisting on this will do nothing but demonstrate conflict of interest. This is to avoid any more en:WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, as observed above. BRP ^ever 06:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @BRPever,

The page above does look confusing. I would like to point out that Polygnotus insisted on talking about things that don't belon here, and that made the discussion convoluted.

I would like to respond to your suggestion of conflict of interest. Studying the Arab-Israeli conflict is a hobby of mine, so I am inclined toward making changes in that area. This was noted in my appeal to the arbitration committee as well. I do my best to follow the rules and sometimes I make mistakes, such as engaging in the discussion above.

Please note that Polygnotus has always made the last edit/comment, and I was always the one to be responsible and disengage. This was noted in the U4C case as well. If my actions raise concerns of conflict of interest (which I firmly reject) and battleground and warrant a restriction, I believe Polygnotus' actions warrant the same. I have never had issues with WP:BATTLEGROUND or incivility in general, while it seems to be^[1] a cross-wiki pattern in Polygnotus's behavior

I respect decisions that administrators see fit, specially when I agree I have participated in a disruptive activity. However, due to the circumstances, I have a hard time with this one-sided restriction. I do not mean to draw attention away from my responsibility (after all, it takes two to tango), but I must point out that the lack of action against Polygnotus demonstrates again the partial/selective enforcement on Simple English

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I have re-read the policy in question and do not agree with your verdict. I thought BG meant having a repetitive long discussions despite them not going anywhere.

Battleground says: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. I have not imported personal conflicts, carried on "ideological" battles nor nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. I have been respective throughout. Please show me where I have done one of the things you accused me of.

Conflict of interest: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. I am not paid by anyone for my editing. I have no connections to the subject, and I have no idea how you got here, and why you would WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.) in your position. Please link any kind of proof that I am paid for my editing.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have neither time nor patience to argue with you here. You have been involved in several edit war in the area which was already experiencing much disruption. You have repeatedly disagreed with others holding a differing views, and been involved in exporting issue that could have just been avoided by complying with admin and editing in unrelated areas. Every-time someone tells you to drop the issue and edit elsewhere, you just start Wikilawyering. You have already been topic banned on another project and if we see signs of disruption here, the same can be enforced here too. If you do not wish to comply, I can just block you again and you can follow up with U4C and see what verdict they come up with. I will follow whatever they decide. BRP ^ever 11:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:Fr33kman,
You are named in a recently filed request to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Please review the request at Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Systematic failure to enforce UCoC on Simple wiki

You are requested to enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit, so that the U4C can get a better overview of the situation. All writing should be complete, but also as concise as possible. Please ensure that you make all comments in your own section and in the discussion section only. If the U4C makes a decision, this will be binding for you and so your participation is recommended.

Please do not reply here, but on the linked case page, or on the associated talk page. If you would like to contact the U4C directly, you will find an e-mail address here. Please use the email only if privacy is necessary (e.g. personal information). NorthernWinds (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:Polygnotus,
You are named in a recently filed request to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Please review the request at Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Systematic failure to enforce UCoC on Simple wiki

You are requested to enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit, so that the U4C can get a better overview of the situation. All writing should be complete, but also as concise as possible. Please ensure that you make all comments in your own section and in the discussion section only. If the U4C makes a decision, this will be binding for you and so your participation is recommended.

Please do not reply here, but on the linked case page, or on the associated talk page. If you would like to contact the U4C directly, you will find an e-mail address here. Please use the email only if privacy is necessary (e.g. personal information). NorthernWinds (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:Steven1991,
You are named in a recently filed request to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Please review the request at Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Systematic failure to enforce UCoC on Simple wiki

You are requested to enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit, so that the U4C can get a better overview of the situation. All writing should be complete, but also as concise as possible. Please ensure that you make all comments in your own section and in the discussion section only. If the U4C makes a decision, this will be binding for you and so your participation is recommended.

Please do not reply here, but on the linked case page, or on the associated talk page. If you would like to contact the U4C directly, you will find an e-mail address here. Please use the email only if privacy is necessary (e.g. personal information). NorthernWinds (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. ↑ Funnily enough, they don't think they were wrong here. They commented "I should get a medal for how patient I've been."