User talk:Michael Zeev

Welcome

Hello, Michael Zeev! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! Michael Zeev, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot t • c » 23:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I thought discussion had finished because internal link was broken. Now the link was fixed.--Michael Zeev (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at David Icke. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former account

Have you ever edited wikipedia under another account ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, I didn't, but I understand your confusion because this account was created from a university's computer in Ariel. I can't take responsibility if other people created other user accounts. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Michael Zeev (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your answer.

Could you explain me what means the comments that you made in one of your edit :

"(Unreferenced opinion. Blatant pov ; wp-undue. Besides, antisemitism not only appeared during economic crises. In any case, it doesn't belong to lead" ?

Many thanks. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. They were the reasons why I removed a paragraph stating that antisemitism is a kind of "reaction to economic situations including economic comparisons of Jews with non-Jews". Unreferenced opinion is an opinion without a serious reference to support it. POV is non-neutral point of view. "Undue" means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Besides, it was a false statement and in any case it didn't belong to lead.--Michael Zeev (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1rr

You've violated the 1RR at Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Self-revert or you may be reported. nableezy - 20:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Stern Gang" designation as "terrorist organization"

Hopefully you would familiarize yourself with basic facts before calling out alleged "labeling POV". During its activity, Lehi actively self-identified as a "terrorist group", and was externally labeled such both by the United Kingdom and the UN Security Council. It was also banned and prosecuted by the state of Israel. Also, the targeted assassination of the UN mediator was quite possibly the most important single event of the whole 1948 conflict, at least internationally speaking. --hydrox (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mizrahi Jews. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian immigration to Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Prieto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deputies

From the Knesset site: "The position of Deputy or Vice Prime Minister is not an official job, rather an honorary position." So I think we can exclude it from the template at all. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oki Doki--Michael Zeev (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I noticed that you pretty much sorted out the template issue. Do you need additional help? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks for asking.--Michael Zeev (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About sources

		The LGBT Barnstar
		blue Israel Hartman (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why are you trying to post Arab propaganda? Air-to-air losses after WW2. No israeli aircraft was shot down in 1973.

LOL--Michael Zeev (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli air forces are best in the world. Israel has developed F-22 fighter(best in the world). No israeli aircraft was shot down by enemy aircraft(It's fact, unlike your propaganda. Israel lost in 1973 0 planes, while you trying to post 5(!!! unbelieveble). Please not tryng post arab stupid propaganda.Israel Hartman (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Arab propagander of all time Israel Hartman (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 1RR at numerous pages recently

Self-revert or your will be blocked even easily as you are are sockpuppet. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what pages are you talking about. And I'm not a "sockpuppet". Strange you didn't warn the same thing to vandal IP.--Michael Zeev (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because I've posted my views on the talk pages (which you haven't done once), politely requested your views without undoing your revert and waited patiently and futilely for your response ... just a thought.

Your violations were reported and your pov-pushing explained.

I informed you of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Politeness will not protect you from complying with WP:NPoV.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

I didn't report the last violation, but you have again violated the 1RR at Yasser Arafat. nableezy - 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, you can see this here. nableezy - 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on the content (the cat). When a parent sends his child back to his homeland, the child is not described as 'immigrating' back home, esp. in those days and in that region. For that simple reason you should have thought of the implications of that POV push, and desisted from trying to make out the head of the PLO was an immigrant into Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a person moves to another place (where he wasn't born), he's an immigrant. It's a matter of facts, not opinions. Arafat was born in Egypt, it doesn't matter where his parents came from. With the same arbitrary criteria, there aren't Jewish immigrants in Israel because their ancestors supposedly came from there in the first place. As you can see, this reasoning is absurd. If you don't like the fact that the PLO leader wasn't born in Palestine, it's your problem, not mine.--Michael Zeev (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a child from a familly of New-York go studying to California, he doesn't immigrate when he comes back to New-York. This is the same in the case of a Russian child who would go living and studying in France.

The case is true for Arafat and it is also true for Ahmad Shukeiri whose father who was a member of the Arab Higher Committee and a member of the Nashashibi party who lived in Palestine. When Shukeiri came back he didn't emigrate in the sense of Joan Peters and her propaganda.

Of course, the reasonning is not valid for Zionist Jews who settled in Palestine more than 2000 years after their ancestors had left : Aliyah is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to the land of Israel / Palestine.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a child born in Russia goes to study in France, he's still a Russian. If a child born in Egypt moves to Palestine, he is an immigrant.--Michael Zeev (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:1RR

The sequence of events reported at WP:AN3#User:Michael Zeev reported by User:Nableezy (Result: ) looks bad for you. Please respond at the noticeboard and agree to obey the 1RR restriction from now on. Otherwise the next admin to review this will probably decide to block your account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of interest to you are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Per the conclusion of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael Zeev reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Warned). EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Consecutive edits by a single user counts as a single edit when determining if user is in violation of 1RR/3RR or not. So my edit at 1948 Arab-Israeli War did not violate 1RR. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, including point-of-view pushing and edit warring on articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You have continued to edit war on numerous articles after receiving the above notice, as can be seen at Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, and perhaps other articles - I have not checked every one of your recent edits. In view of all the messages you have received here, discussion elsewhere, and your own responses to the discussion, it is perfectly certain that you were well aware that what you were doing was unacceptable, and under the circumstances I regard a 1-week block as truly minimal. An indefinite block may well result if you continue. As just one illustration of the fact that you were clearly aware of what you were doing, I refer to this edit, in which you said "I will strictly obey 1RR from now on", but you have continued to ~~breach the one-revert rule~~ edit war on several articles, skirting closely round the one revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't break 1RR since my last warning. All my editions were just and respectful of this rule. Could you at least show my an edition where I reverted more than once in 24 hours in a single article? Thanks. Michael Zeev (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for reverting more than once in 24 hours in a single article. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to address the reasons you were blocked. (As an aside, you can be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether you break the literal terms of any nRR restriction) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2013 (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.

You waited a whole 3 minutes after the 24 hours were up to re-revert here, original revert here. You made your "promise" at 22:32 on the 3rd, then you reverted at 23:01, and again the next day at 23:04. nableezy - 18:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category is appropriate and you know it. But besides of that, I repeat my question again: Did I break 1RR by reverting in a single article more than once in 24 hours?--Michael Zeev (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not, but the example holds. Waiting four minutes doesnt magically make it not edit-warring. You were reverted, by multiple users, and, instead of gaining consensus for your edit, tried to wait out the restriction, not one day after being reported and, thanks to EJ's good graces, only getting off with a warning. Not the smartest move. nableezy - 19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, please understand that right now, after most experienced pro-Israel editors have been banned and most new ones have been blocked based on secret evidence given to a sympathetic admin, the pro-Palestinian editors have a numbers advantage you won't be able to overcome by trying to force your issues. In the Izz ad-Din article mentioned above, it took me exactly 30 seconds to find an excellent source they won't be able to get around (we'll ignore the fact that their objections were just IDONTLIKEIT. You have to work to get facts into articles here. The truth has no weight to some people). That's what you need to do. Don't edit war - you can't win since they have the numbers. Don't give them a reason to topic ban you. Just find sources that meet WP:RS and you'll be able to get these simple and obvious facts into articles, even if it takes a while and going to a few noticeboards. This is not a race. People can argue that someone who moved from one country to another didn't immigrate, as stupid as that sounds. Patience is key. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced editor you could have explained that Wikipedia articles are produced based on what has been written in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, not on the opinions of editors, their personal worldview or their perspectives on what is the "truth". You could have also said that if Michael is willing to do the work and provide good reliable sources for his additions there is a good chance they will stick in the encyclopaedia. If he is willing to abide by basic editing principles such as not edit warring he will find he will not be sanctioned.

Instead you decided to indulge in a rant exhibiting your battle ground mentality. If the purpose of your post was to help Michael to get his additions to stick in the article and to avoid blocks I doubt inculcating the editor with your own battle ground mentality is likely to help in that regard. Dlv999 (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Michael, the above is a baiting attempt. What you do is ignore it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. The problem is that even rational editions with reliable sources are reverted by "militant" users. And if I insist (without violating 1RR), I get blocked. I mean... Immigration is the movement of people into another country or region to which they are not native in order to settle there, right? Well, the situation of al-Qassam at the moment of his settlement in Haifa is not different from Ehud Avriel for example, who is included in the category "Austrian emigrants to Mandatory Palestine" without needing special sources to support it. If someone comes from Europe is an immigrant... but if he comes from another Middle Eastern country is not? What kind of arbitrary and absurd concept is this? Yet, I'm the "POV-pushing" guy... I need some help to make worthy contributions in Wikipedia, I can't do it on my own. Articles relating to Israel and Palestine are under watch and owned by a very dedicated group with a clear political agenda, although they try to deny it accusing other editors.--Michael Zeev (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Find a source that says "immigrated" like I did, and then there's nothing they can do. At least not in the long run. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I never searched for online books before, this was my mistake. Now I found six books saying al-Qassam immigrated to Palestine. Thanks.--Michael Zeev (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. 'Nothing more they can do.'(?) You guys are both way-overrreading between the lines. Several editors asked Michael to find a source. He didn't but preferred edit-warring in what was a personal interpretation (in lieu of a sourcer). You've now found one. Everyone's satisfied. This has nothing to do with rail-roading, as you wrote elsewhere.Nishidani (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have decided to use your waiting barely over 24 hours in order to Wikilawyer round the exact details of the one-revert rule, I am striking out my statement that you breached the one-revert rule. However, if you read the block notice in its entirety, not just the part that you think you have a defence against, you will see that the one-revert rule is not actually the reason given for the block, which is "persistent disruptive editing, including point-of-view pushing and edit warring". Even if there were no one-revert rule, your editing would have justified the block. If anything, carefully skirting round the one-revert rule and then using that as grounds for a block appeal makes it worse, as it shows that you were fully aware of what you were doing, and were quite deliberately trying to game the system. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment in support of User:JamesBWatson's analysis. There would be some reason to unblock if it was clear that the former problems would not recur. If you think that your previous behavior was just fine then clearly there is no meeting of the minds here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IranitGreenberg, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

nableezy - 06:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Now I'm accused of "sockpuppetry"?--Michael Zeev (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed, specifically of creating the Michael Zeev account to evade the indefinite topic ban from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area of IranitGreenberg. nableezy - 06:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are confusing me with another user.--Michael Zeev (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, you can ask your new pal up there how often Im wrong about these things, but we'll find out Im sure. nableezy - 06:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, his comment was the one that actually made me take a deeper look. Funny how things work out. nableezy - 06:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say how often he's wrong, but I can say that he regularly gets editors (nobody knows who or how many since it's usually done off wiki with no documentation trail) he feels are pro-Israel (and only those) blocked based on secret evidence. I'd suggest not engaging him and going to SPI to ask for an opportunity to defend yourself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since you cried about me emailing a clerk who would ask a CU to make a check, every sock Ive reported has been in exactly this way, as you yourself suggested, though probably absent the notification to the user talk page. You are the one that said I should post at SPI and say that the evidence is behavioral and the entire pool of CUs/clerks would be able to decide if they wanted to look at it, not me asking anybody off-wiki for anything. I also dont recall me not leaving any on-wiki evidence of a request being made, but your free to theorize whatever conspiracy among the evildoers suits your fancy. But now you dont like the method you suggested either? How exactly should it be done? The evidence, if made public, makes it easier for future socks to get away with it. That may be a good thing to you, but not to most fair-minded people. nableezy - 07:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might come as a shock to you, but I spend very little time looking at what you're up to. If you're now going to SPI with everything, that's awesome. If the whole pool of CUs is looking at your secret evidence, that's awesome^2. Have you been getting the same success rate as with the one particular admin? I wish there was some way to check.

As for "fair-minded people", I'd think such people wouldn't just be reporting their political opponents. What do you think? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. One account hasnt been blocked, but its super careful, an edit every few months, and I think Im still right about that one. Everybody else tho, well, you know. And again, its pretty easy to tell when I reported it by email in the past. Thered be a message on a talk page saying Ive sent an email, and then there would be a block or there wouldnt be, and usually with a note to that effect on the talk page. As far as the last line, and as always you are more than welcome on my talk page to discuss this further, we've gone through this before. How many pro-P sockpuppets, and sockpuppeteers, are there? And, to the actual point, whenever one is found you wont see me trying to rush to aid the poor misguided soul who just needs to be free from this persecution from the Bad Man. nableezy - 07:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many pro-P sockpuppets? Quite a few, as I'm pretty sure you're aware. It's nice of you not to rush to their defense. When are you going to report one? I mean, if a layman like me can find them, I'm sure an expert sock hunter such as yourself must have a few suspicions, apropos fair-mindedness. And how many pro-I sockpuppeteers are there, anyway? There's Nocal who you use to get every new pro-I editor from North America blocked, and AHJ who you use to get every new pro-I editor from South America blocked, and I guess now IranitGreenberg who you'll use to get every new Israeli pro-I editor blocked? I'm guessing your super-secret evidence is that these two guys have the same accent and are interested in articles about their country and surroundings. Did I miss anyone?

The interesting thing about all this is that you used to get huge amounts of slack at AE because supposedly you were balancing out the pro-I editors, now there are almost no pro-I editors left since they get no slack, and you and your buddies are still here. Weird, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things like that show youre not interested in a serious, honest discussion. Get every pro-I editor from North America blocked of NoCal, or every one from South American one off of Andres, that is such an idiotic statement that I cant believe that you even think the hyperbole is warranted. You base this idea that Im wrong about the socks off of nothing. You havent seen the evidence, you are unaware of what is used as justification for checkusers or, on the rare occasion a block is issued without one, a straight block, but you feel confident in claiming that accounts not operated by those blocked users were in fact blocked based upon super-secret evidence. It isnt super-secret, I have no control over who has access to the evidence. You just arent one of those people. Tough shit. Continue making things up to your hearts content, Ill respond if I find you muster up something worth the effort of responding to. nableezy - 10:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. A serious and honest discussion is pretending you're not aware of any pro-P socks operating in the topic area right now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not. What sock? And if you have evidence for it go right ahead and file an SPI, whos stopping you? Why is it that you think I should be doing that work for you? nableezy - 11:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's "[my] work" to report pro-P socks? Serious and honest, remember? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you wanted it done, you knew who it was, and you had evidence for it. If you dont then I guess its not. nableezy - 11:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I knew this wouldn't go anywhere. Please feel free to get the last word in, as usual. I have a flight to catch and probably won't be back here for a while, so you may continue to abuse your hard earned advantage, as we saw on the page that got this guy blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got nothing, and as you saw at the Jerusalem RFC, you cant actually get what you want when the rules are enforced, so you turn to unfounded claims of abuse. Yeah, sounds about right. nableezy - 11:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't defend myself at SPI, as I'm blocked for one week. This is unbelievable. I guess I'll just have to wait for the resolution of my case.--Michael Zeev (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a statement you can post it here and I will paste it at SPI. Dlv999 (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]