User talk:Eitan110

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a suspected sock puppet used in a content dispute (edit-war). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.


 * You know, the proof here looks pretty good. Checkuser (IP checking) is only one part in an SPI, and the behavioral evidence looks like you are a puppet. Look at your block log (go to Special:Log/block and type your name in the target box) and you can see 's reasoning behind your block. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 23:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a particular opinion about whether this account is or is not a sock puppet, but I'm quite baffled by the process here. Origamite says that "the proof here looks pretty good", but I'm not seeing any explicit proof. I tried looking at the histories and the talk pages of the articles in question and nothing jumps at me as a proof of sockpuppetry. I am not even sure what the other account is. WP:SPI says: "Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts ar connected. [...] You must provide this evidence in a clear way." I might be missing something, but I am not seeing any diffs, certainly not in a clear way. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)e
 * I think that a good proof for the clame of having multiple accounts must provide the other accounts that you suspect that they under my possession. without that the proof doesn't hold water. --Eitan110 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * SUL Info shows that Eitan110 is telling the truth about this being a unified login.
 * At the time of Eitan110 block, Eitan110 had made 3 edits. The contribution history of Eitan110 shows that Eitan110's second and third edits are linked to the same edit war. — For those of you who do not realise the list of events described as ethnic cleansing was moved out of the article called Ethnic cleansing into an article called List of ethnic cleansings between the second and third edits that Eitan110 made, hence the edits two and three are reverts to the same list.
 * There are currently in excess of 4.5m pages on English Wikipdia. How did you, Eitan110, become aware that a revert war was taking place over the section that you made your undo edit, because usually it takes editors time to find a page they want to edit and even more time before they get involved in an edit war (because most new editors don't read a page, and "think there is something missing, but I won't research it because I presume it must be in the recent edit history! So I'll just list the history and revert the appropriate edit" -- what they normally do is write the piece from scratch using third party sources). So please explain here how you came to make this particular edit. As a follow up then explain how you knew the list was move between your two edits and why you made another revert without first discussing your position on the talk page of one or both articles. -- PBS (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been a discussion about one of the user that took part in that edit war in the Hebrew Wiki. I think that explain prety well how i found the edit war. I visit the page Ethnic cleansing few days after and found that the list was moved.--Eitan110 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I ran the link you provided through Google translate:

Hi,
 * == Political activists English wiki ==

Not so much related to Hebrew Wiki but I noticed that political activists are rewriting the values ​​one-way too lateral. For example using Oncenawhile, all of his editing is anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. What exactly do you do? - confy -  Talk 23:48, 13 August 2014 (EDT)

Now archived in number 357

English Wikipedia has a rule against this sort of recruitment (See Sock puppetry). It seems that you were duped, but some of you comments in the full archived section shows that you have a more combative attitude than most who posted opinions to that thread, so I will unblock you account providing you agree to a 1 revert rule to any edit that Oncenawhile makes for the next year, and that you agree to follow the WP:BRD cycle whenever you make an edit which is reverted or wherever you revert an edit made by any established editor on the English language Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that my situation is a meatpuppetry case. CONFIQ didn't come to the Hebrew Wiki to recruit someone. He came because he wanted advice on how to deal with political activists in Wikipdia. In any case I believe that I proved that I'm not a sock puppet so please remove my block. I don't agree to the 1 revert rule against Oncenawhile. In my eye, he is a political activist who edits from none pure motives. I agree to the WP:BRD --Eitan110 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Look. You're blocked. You may be right that he's an activist. So? You can still discuss with him, and come to an agreement, because Wikipedia is about consensus. You will be unblocked if you agree with 1RR. We are just trying to avoid edit warring later on. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 00:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will agree to the 1 revert rule even though I think that the restriction isn't fair, and moreover using an unjust block to force me to agree is inappropriate. The only reason that I'm agreeing is that I want to be active and not waste more time in this unproductive argument.--Eitan110 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your account is now unblocked. -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles
To save yourself grief later on, please read
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (WP:ARBPIA)

-- PBS (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)