Hello, Eitan Drutman, andwelcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see theWikipedia Teahouse.
and check out theTask Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name ontalk pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see ourhelp pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me onmy talk page or place{{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!
P.S. Usernames that are actual real names (or even look like real names) are discouraged. Such usernames significantly increase the potential for harassment. I recommend before you get deep into editing that you consider changing your username to something else. The process is explained here:Wikipedia:Changing username.
You have recently edited a page related totheArab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Please note that topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to theextended-confirmed restrictions. This includes very severe limits on edits allowed to people without 500 edits. The history of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are included. Please read the restrictions and stick to them until you reach the magic 500.Zerotalk00:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Welcome to the project. Please utilize thepreview button so you don't have to follow up every edit with five others adjusting things in the first. Try grouping related edits together into a unit. Also, seeWP:OVERLINK, and don't wikilink common terms or dates. Thanks.Opencooper (talk)07:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eitan Drutman: per discussion at ANI, I've unblocked you with the understanding that you will stop the behavior that led to the block, i.e.: you agree to stop making too many edits in a row to the same page when it could be done all at once. As explained at the ANI thread, this kind of editing pattern makes life harder for other editors in multiple ways, such as watchlist spamming and searching for old revisions of the page. Consider using your sandbox before editing mainspace articles.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈21:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You started again, and it's just as disruptive as it was in before. Since you don't seem to think so, and since you've started abusing other editors at ANI, the indefinite block is reinstated. You wasted your second chance.Acroterion(talk)02:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank god I can reply here.
I think you made a miatake. I wasn't attacking the user I replyed to. I was just telling them that he is talking about something we already talked about and came to an understanding that I just should not continue to do that, and I, indeed, did not continue to do that.
We were talking about my user-page where some editors indeed told that I can't do the char at a time edits there as well, but no one actually told **why** it's disuptive, compared to the main space where they did told why it is disruptive what I did there, and therefore I stopped doing that. The user I replyed to did thia as well and that is why I kinda answered firmly, but I DID NOT attacked him! At least that wasn't my intention. Although, I see why it does sound like that, and yes, even that is indeed too much, okay. I understand, for the next time I'll just won't do even that, I'll keep myself not just civil, but also not too forceful.
Back to the user page, I did not got any valid reason, yet, to why it is disruptive as well, all I got was just some editors, as expert as they are, telling that this is not okay, without giving an actual reason to **why** it is not okay. And still, I didn't repeat the char at a time edits during tge discussion, as a lesson from the previous block. So again, here is another thing I learnt from the block and I indeed implementing it as well.
All I want is an actual reason to *why* can't I edit my user-page this way, and if I will indeed get one, I'll stop it. Just like I did with the previous issue.
I want the Wikipedia to be a nice, civil and valuable place as well, and I do whatever I can on my side to achieve it. I am not searching for any trouble at all. I want to go together with you, my fellow editors, to make this project thrive, not apart from you, and definitley not against you.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
"I think you made a miatake. I wasn't attacking the user I replyed to. I was just telling them that he is talking about something we already talked about and came to an understanding that I just should not continue to do that, and I, indeed, did not continue to do that.
We were talking about my user-page where some editors indeed told that I can't do the char at a time edits there as well, but no one actually told **why** it's disuptive, compared to the main space where they did told why it is disruptive what I did there, and therefore I stopped doing that. The user I replyed to did thia as well and that is why I kinda answered firmly, but I DID NOT attacked him! At least that wasn't my intention. Although, I see why it does sound like that, and yes, even that is indeed too much, okay. I understand, for the next time I'll just won't do even that, I'll keep myself not just civil, but also not too forceful.
Back to the user page, I did not got any valid reason, yet, to why it is disruptive as well, all I got was just some editors, as expert as they are, telling that this is not okay, without giving an actual reason to **why** it is not okay. And still, I didn't repeat the char at a time edits during tge discussion, as a lesson from the previous block. So again, here is another thing I learnt from the block and I indeed implementing it as well.
All I want is an actual reason to *why* can't I edit my user-page this way, and if I will indeed get one, I'll stop it. Just like I did with the previous issue.
I want the Wikipedia to be a nice, civil and valuable place as well, and I do whatever I can on my side to achieve it. I am not searching for any trouble at all. I want to go together with you, my fellow editors, to make this project thrive, not apart from you, and definitley not against you.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is not an unblock request,it is an attempt to negotiate an acceptable level of disruptive behavior. We are not negotiating.
You did indeed attack another editor at ANI, then you tried to reframe it, in the same incremental manner as you've been doing.
No, you may not transfer your disruptive editing behavior to your userspace. "you agree to stop making too many edits in a row to the same page when it could be done all at once" is quite clear. You did not stick to that condition and did it atAriel Atias (athlete), after doing dozens of one-character edits in your userspace. We're done. You've wasted enough of your time and ours. You are indefinitely blocked.Acroterion(talk)13:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]
@Acroterion, the reason it (the second block) all started is the edits I did onAriel Atias (athlete) and on my user page.
Regarding theAriel Atias (athlete) page, the first few edits to add a link page were done on a mistake, the other edits, to add the info, were done this way because I need to jump between articles in order to get the general structure and use it.
Regarding my user page. After the editors told me *why* I can't edit like I did in the main space and *how* it's disruptive, I stopped doing it and went to my user page to do it. That ia the only reason. Beacuse I thought that there I could do it without a problem.
Then, they told me that editing like that on my user page is not acceptable as well, without give an actual reason to *why*, and *how* it actually disruptive, and that is all I asked for. I said it numearous time already and I'll say it again, all I want is an explenation. After I will get it, I'll stop. If I'll get it. (By "get it" I mean that someone will give it to me).
The editor I "attacked" did the exact same thing: he told me to stop, without guving an actual explenation, and he just quoted other responses that did the exact same. That is why I responded like I did, which, I don't think is considered an attack, but rather a little aggresive response. Which may sound like an attack. But again, I did not attack him nor tried to attck him. If it's too aggresive to Wikipedia, I won't reply like this again.
Plus, I didn't "reframe" my response, I just added a little more censoring after an editor replied to my that it was not civil. My first response could have been watched at any time if someone wanted to.
All I want is a propriate discussion about the issue and issues. Again, I am not searching to do any trouble here. All I want is to be a part of this project, and yes, especially as a begginer, I can make mistakes, and I can learn from them. The first block was valid, but the second one was too fast. You didn't held a discussion about it with me and you don't seem to want to do it as well. But I do want to held it. And it dosen't need to be long. Because, again, all I want is an explenation. After I'll get it, the issue will be done and you, hopefully, won't hear about me ragrading bad stuff.
That is part of my try to create a discussion. It is not yet an official unblock request (though it was meant to be at first, but it isn't now).Eitan Drutman (talk)09:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've had the discussion. That you refused to listen (WP:IDHT) isyour problem. You've thoroughly exhausted the community's patience. I want to be incredibly clear.NO MORE. Make an unblock request addressing your completely inappropriate behaviour. OrSTOP EDITING. --Yamla (talk)09:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is asking for an explanation is too much to ask for? It could have end so easily and quickly if at least one editor will tell *how* it was and is disruptive, just like they did with the first issue.Eitan Drutman (talk)09:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the editors above have noted, you have been given an explanation before. But since you can still read this page, and I believe you are an enthusiastic beginner and not a troll, I'm going to try to make it even clearer.
Your user page isnot semi-private. It is public. Every page on Wikipedia, including user pages and talk pages, is watched over by other people - maybe just one or two, maybe hundreds, and for very big and popular pages it could be thousands. Some people specifically watch new pages, like the article on Ariel Atias. As you know, every edit sends a message to every editor watching it. So whenever you editany page, someone will get a message. We do this in an effort to keep Wikipedia accurate, making sure the information is up to date and there is no 'graffiti' (vandalism) in the form of rude words and malicious accusations aimed at well-known people or companies or whoever it is the 'graffiti'er doesn't like. They sometimes put this kind of stuff on user pages and talk pages as well as everywhere else on Wikipedia, so every page needs to be monitored.
There are thousands of edits every single hour, so this is a very difficult task! If someone is editing an article one character at a time, or one word at a time, or even one sentence at a time, that person is adding lots more work to everyone else's load. Now there are tons more edits to check, and because editing one character at a time (or one word, or one sentence) is a very unusual method, it looks kind of suspicious and so the editors watching the pages will be concerned that this is a way to sneak vandalism into a page without them noticing. It's not fair to everyone else; you are making so many edits that no one can keep up and other articles will suffer.
That's not all! When you are editing so quickly, no one else can edit. If someone edits and saves (by pressing 'publish') an article, anyone else who was editing at the same time gets an 'edit conflict' notice and has to try again. This happens to everyone from time to time, but usually if they try again it will work, because the other editor has finished their editing and the article is available again. When you edit so quickly and so much, everyone else keeps getting edit conflicts and gets very frustrated. This is also unfair, because everyone here is volunteering their time and energy to make Wikipedia better, and you are wasting time they could be using to improve other articles or do other fun things.
The last thing to keep in mind is that you were actually very rude to other editors trying to help you. Saying 'sorry to be rude' isn't enough. Nor is 'censoring' yourself afterwards. If you get angry, go do something else until you are calm and ready to discuss things politely. Everyone gets angry sometimes, but it's not okay to lash out at other people. We are all trying to do the same thing: make Wikipedia the best it can be. If you are unblocked, please remember that, and treat people with respect. I wish you well both on Wikipedia and in the rest of your life.StartGrammarTime (talk)16:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as anadministrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.
You emailed me requesting that I reinstate talk page access. Nothing in your email convinces me you understand why you lost talk page access. Additionally, you were so abusive you lost UTRS access for six months. You should wait until you have UTRS access again and then convince us you understand what was wrong. Even one instance ofblock evasion in that time will make it basically impossible for you to get unblocked. --Yamla (talk)11:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I am obligated not to post your email address publicly unless you specifically give me permission to do so. But no, I won't reinstate your talk page access. You were exceedingly disruptive. Do not email me again, please. --Yamla (talk)12:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you sent one to me. I agree with Yamla. "I don't want to wait six months" is not a reason to unblock - more like the reverse. We expect you to have some self-discipline, which time may provide. And don't email anybody during that time. Your email did nothing to convince me that your block and the withdrawals of talkpage and UTRS access (I saw your UTRS requests) should be reconsidered.Acroterion(talk)13:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a waiting of 6 months and then submitting an appeal on the UTRS, I got permission to edit my user talk page to post here an Unblock Request.
So here is my unblock request:
Well, yeah, 6 months is a lot of time, which indeed made me realize that I was entirely wrong in this case, and that I definitely should have been blocked due to the reasons back then. But since then, I realized that I was wrong, and where I was wrong. First of all, it is my responsibility to know what I should and should not do while editing Wikipedia; it is my responsibility to read all the rules in all cases of editing and follow them; it is my responsibility to know what is acceptable and what is not, and to understand and except it when I am being wrong, and it is my responsibility to know boundaries - both in how I can edit regardless where, as long as it is a public Wikipedia page and not a sandbox, I should follow Wikipedia's editing rules and conventions, and how I engage with other editors as well.
As an editor, it is my duty to contribute in a way that upholds Wikipedia's integrity. That means ensuring that every edit I make aligns with policies and guidelines. It is my responsibility to seek clarification when I am unsure about a rule, rather than making assumptions. It is also my responsibility to listen to feedback from experienced editors and administrators, acknowledging their concerns rather than dismissing them and refusing to listen (WP:IDHT). I understand that Wikipedia is a shared space built on trust, and I have a duty to edit in a way that fosters that trust—by acting with transparency, engaging in discussions in good faith, and always prioritizing the accuracy and neutrality of content over personal preferences or opinions.
And for the specific issues: yes, I wrong by editing a char by char, even though it wasn't done out of malice, but rather that I just didn't know that it is causing harm, and it is my problem and y problem only. I should have known that, and it is my problem I didn't know that. Then, when I did it in my personal User Page, it was the same issue - I thought it was okay because it was mine, but no, it is a public Wikipedia page just as any other and I should treat it as such, and I didn't do that, so that is, again, my problem only, as I should have known that as well. But I do know it now. And I promise it won't happen again. Plus I also responded impulsively to someone, and of course it shouldn't have done at all, I am sorry about it, and I won't do it again, the next time if I will ever get frustrated with someone, I will just take a break and come back later to response in nicely manner. And of course, as I said before, I will listen to senior editors and admins, I will acknowledge their concerns rather than dismissing them and refusing to listen, because they for sure know much more than me. I will also do my best to find the place where I was wrong, both by searching Wikipedia and of course, by just listening to what they are saying.
I sincerely apologize for any harm done by me and for exhausting the community. I will learn from my mistakes and won't do it again. From now on, I want to contribute to Wikipedia the best I can, and not the other way around.
I believe in redemption, I'm willing to extend a chance. And a thank you to Eitan for hand-writing your appeal, rather than using AI; you have no idea how often we receive anodyne mush.Acroterion(talk)19:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eitan, I've pinged you on PhilKnight's talk page. I've asked him whether the unblock can be undone, because you have returned to the same editing behavior that got you blocked last time.Schazjmd(talk)22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I want to keep my privacy and not share my email address...
If there is any other option to chat with you, I can consdier it, but if there isn't, I'm quite sure that Wikipedia recognizes the reasonability of preferring privacy overWP:NOTAFORUM and so we could chat here or something, but maybe I'm wrong.... I don't know Wikipedia this much...Eitan Drutman (talk)22:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Fair enough. I have no excusions this time. I have an explanation if you want to hear though... tl;dr, the edits and their mechanism and stats satisfy me and are just making me feel nice a bit, not something bombastic, but it just something I love to do a little here and then, while trying to not harm anything while doing so and to do it in a reasonable extent.... I'll get a little personal and share that it also helps me with my OCD, ADHD, and with my un-diagnosed lite PTSD due to the recent war in my country, it helps me to get away from the shit going on and also face it while editing related articles....
Yet if it's so disruptive even the way I was doing it (not much in a day, only in my User Pgae), I guess that enough is enough and it's time to cut it off and leave Wikipedia definitively now, no excuses. I didn't want to share this personal info till now, but I guess that it's time now. Maybe I'll get back to here somewhen with *just* the contribution to the Wikipedia project in my mind (I also want to contribute now, it's just ain't the only thing), who knows..... Maybe in a few months or years..... Myabe. Maybe then you will give my one last chance, after relexing from this all, after months and years will pass. Maybe. And maybe not... Maybe I won't get back to here, to editing Wikipedia, ever again. Maybe.
Anyway, sorry for any issues I did... Wish all of you the best! Both here in editing Wikipedia, and just in life as well. And remember: always be happy, no matter what. That's what matters the most. Love you all, and see you later, or maybe not, maybe never again.
You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia forpromotion or advertising, as you did atEuro 2024.Nearly but not perfect (talk)14:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Bestagon ⬡14:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
