User talk:Eitan Drutman

I saw your post on Reddit. Welcome!

Eitan Drutman's response: Thanks! Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Eitan Drutman, and welcome 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 the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my 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.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. And once again, welcome! Kingturtle = (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Eitan Drutman (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious 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 edit carefully and constructively, 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, have 500 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 topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. 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 the extended-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. Zero^talk 00:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microedits

Hi. Welcome to the project. Please utilize the preview 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, see WP:OVERLINK, and don't wikilink common terms or dates. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Euro 2024. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official game of UEFA... Eitan Drutman (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it is not advertising... Eitan Drutman (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think. Eitan Drutman (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you will write and explain why it's considered as advertising. Eitan Drutman (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man. You threaten to ban me and don't give me an appropriate explanation? Eitan Drutman (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it sounded promotional to me, and it's not even necessary to the Euro 2024 page. The Euro 2020 page doesn't even have it. Stop adding it back. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could and should be discussed. But do you at least agree that it isn't advertising? Eitan Drutman (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not belong on the Euro 2024 page. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the symbols and marketing, so, in my opinion, it does belong. As I said before, it could and should be discussed. Eitan Drutman (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EURO 2024 goalscorers

Please, put the goalscorers in the order of alphabet of their nation. Romania is not above Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. Dave Ondzuls (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know it was by the order of alphabet of their nation. I will. Eitan Drutman (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By alphabetical order in general. Eitan Drutman (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll keep that in mind for the next time. Eitan Drutman (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One character at a time?

Hi, I'm curious why you seem to be creating an article one character at a time, with the same edit summary every time? It fills the logs and feels kind of disruptive. Could you maybe write full sentences and use the preview function, perhaps with a useful edit summary? Thanks, Bestagon ⬡ 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bestagon ⬡ 14:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know it fills the logs or somerhing like this, sorry. Eitan Drutman (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:13, 8 August 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]

Okay. Thank you. Eitan Drutman (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 11 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.

Thank you. Eitan Drutman (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request - 11 August, 2024

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eitan Drutman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reply to the admin who blocked me:

"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.

Thank you." Eitan Drutman (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide 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 at Ariel 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 on Ariel Atias (athlete) and on my user page.

Regarding the Ariel 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.

Thank you. Eitan Drutman (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tag you here because it didn't let me to do so in my previous so-called "reply": @Acroterion Eitan Drutman (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make an unblock request addressing your inappropriate behaviour, or for the love of everyone's sanity, STOP. --Yamla (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) is your 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. Or STOP 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 is not 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 edit any 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 an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Talk page access

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 of block 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]

And no means no. Don't email me again, you're about to lose email access too. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]