Open main menu

Contents

Order of Hebrew monthsEdit

I see that User:Debresser changes it back so it should be numbered from Nisan. I think you should come to a talk. Thanks and regards. --תנא קמא (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Masterofthename Pattern of EditsEdit

I'd like to bring your attention to User: Masterofthename and the user's pattern of anti semitic edits. I have cataloged edits below that show a pattern of antisemitism and a failure to follow Wikipedia guidelines:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purim: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purim&diff=828658054&oldid=828640712

- Masterofthename added a "Cristicism" section to a Jewish holiday page, a section which does not belong on a holiday page and which you reversed, citing: (Undid revision 828506680 by Masterofthename (talk) unreliable, antisemitic sources, not necessary for a religious festival) (undo | thank) Tag: Undo

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Stone&diff=880166172&oldid=880148590

- Masterofthename added that Roger Stone is Jewish, an edit that was reverted since the article Masterofthename used was retracted.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran&type=revision&diff=700910482&oldid=700418525

- Masterofthename added a photo of Adolf Hitler to the page

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Azoulay

- Masterofthename created this page and included a Controversies section on page with trivial “sourced” information that has no business being on Wikipedia. Controversies section was disputed and eventually removed from page (see article history and Neutrality (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,380 bytes) -519‎ . . ((1) not a reliable source; (2) her stepson's actions are not a "controversy" involving her (coat-rack much?) & (3) Wash Post article (which doesn't mention Azousay) says stepson was never charged or accused of "any of the more sinister acts of vandalism")

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Mizrahi

- Masterofthename has had a pattern of making disruptive edits to the page and at one point was issued a vandalism warning (see Masterofthename's Talk page)

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuter_concession

- Masterofthename created the page and on line 1 added: Reuter Concession was a contract signed between Baron Julius de Reuter (born Israel Beer Josaphat) a British-Jewish banker and businessman... Language of the page then had to be corrected by user, citing: Ginanahai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,398 bytes) -9‎ . . (Changed British-Jewish banker to British banker. We don't say British-Christian, or British-Catholic. The person's religion does not affect his nationality.)

Masterofthename has an agenda opposite from adding to Wikipedia in a neutral, unbiased way.

I would like your help in imposing an article ban (WP:ABAN, WP:PBAN) on his account on the pages listed above or a ban on pages associated with Judaism. Mepo233 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

HorowitzEdit

Defenders of lynching is not a joke. The article addresses it. deisenbe (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what he said. Be careful with POV and BLP violations.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Deisenbe, that's a very strong accusation to make regarding a living person. If you feel strongly enough regarding this, you should take it to WP:BLP/N first, before putting it into articles. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Recent RfC ClosureEdit

usernameEdit

hi there, can you please explain how to link your username as I have tried and been unable.Govindaharihari (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Finally found it, not easy, you should imo look at sorting that out - or I can raise it at usernames with concerns if you feel יניב הורון (Yaniv) - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) There is nothing wrong with having a non-Latin username. We have a steward with an Arabic script username, and CUs on other projects with Hebrew, Japanese, Sanskrit, and Arabic script usernames. Because of SUL this is unavoidable and isn’t a bad thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • ta.Yes I am happy with all non-Latin usernames it was just that I have never had such a job linking to a username. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
        • (talk page stalker) Arabic and Hebrew are difficult as they are right to left - and many browsers suppport this and will flip direction when you mouse over, but it is usually possible to copy of you fiddle with it.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Ta Ice. I'm using firefox and it was really hard, ta for the advice though. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Offensive and false edit summariesEdit

If you're going to make serious accusations in your edit summaries like you did here then you need to justify them and provide evidence. Otherwise you're engaging in particularly nasty form of personal attack. Yes, this is a warning, as your conduct is extremely disturbing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Tendentious editing across multiple topic areas and time frames.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m about as sympathetic of an administrator as you will come across to fighting anti-semitism on this project, but the diff Volunteer Marek linked above is entirely unacceptable and only makes it more difficult to deal with actual anti-semitism and racism. Using that as an attack in a content dispute, combined with your block log and your exhibiting the exact same aggressive behaviours and focus on winning that led to your TBAN from the Arab-Israeli conflict have caused me to conclude that a topic ban in Eastern Europe would only shift the problem to other areas, and that because of this, the only option is an indefinite block. This is not an AE block, so if you want to appeal, just follow the directions above. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: - this is shameful - a shameful episode for English Wikipedia that is now endorsing denial. Yaniv reverted content that denied the mass Polish pilfering of Jewish property. The content, beyond misusing primary sources, cited a book Klucze i Kasa whose conclusion is the opposite - as is clear in the original Polish and in this short English summary - "The book, “Klucze i Kasa” (“Keys and Money”) details the ways in which Poles got rich off Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust – by plundering property that was left behind, charging exorbitant fees for hiding them, and so on. This may be another underlying reason for the Polish perception of Jews as a source of wealth – they literally enriched them. And paradoxically, their guilt feelings over this are being projected onto the Jews.".[1] Furthermore, the source of the content (paraphrased text but copy-paste of citations) is clearly a manuscript by Mark Paul - this one (previous wiki discussion - here - note closer's note on Tatzref). This is a questionable WP:SPS and Mark Paul is known for disseminating the myth of "the ungrateful Jew" - see this academic source. Yaniv's description of the content may have been overly frank, however the problem is with the content itself - not commentary thereof. That such WP:HOAX material - blatant and libelous misrepresentation of sources (and yes - this is a WP:BLP issue towards the miscited authors - Grabowski&Libionka) - is inserted onto the English Wikipedia is shameful, and that users get blocked for attempting to rectify this - is even more shameful.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yaniv got blocked because his behaviour makes clear he’s unable to work on a collaborative project. As his block log and the AELOG show, he’s been given more chances than virtually any other editor I’ve encounteted. He’s free to appeal, but I’m not going to get into a back and forth if he hasn’t appealed yet. The options here were a complete Eastern Europe TBAN or an indef. I went through his recent contributions and found these: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. That’s just looking at inappropriate edit summaries throughout the past month and without looking at representation of sources in disputes, etc. Calling the edits of other editors anti-Semitic when it’s not clear, threatening to report them for vandalizing when they aren’t, and similar behaviours contribute to a long-term pattern of WP:TE, which is the reason for this block and made me realize a topic ban was unlikely to solve anything. He can have the views of the sourcing and presentation he has, but crying anti-Semite to win a dispute and silence opposition has no place here.
    Icewhiz, you know that if there’s racist or anti-Semitic nonsense I’ll block it as quick as I can and if appropriate use other tools to get rid of any trace of it, but editors using accusations of it as a tool to win a content dispute is simply not okay. Given his block log, this was really the only place to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: - So calling content (and Yaniv's comment was directed at the content) anti-semitic, is blockable. Inserting content (copy pasted from a highly questionable source - and that is clear - the citations are identical - they all appear in this abridged version - excerpts from Mark Paul on an advocacy site against HR 1226/JUST Act (See NYT,Haaretz for background) that is beyond questionable (and a BLP issues vs the mis-cited authors)- no action. There are other editors here who should have been blocked here. As it stands - the English Wikipedia would seem to accept such content, while blocking those who would call it out. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    @K.e.coffman: - could you please add your 2 cents here regarding this content and Mark Paul? Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    Calling content inserted by another editor who is not an anti-semitic troll “antisemitic vandalism” is a personal attack and a chilling tactic designed to stifle opposition, as documented above, and is textbook tendentious editing. The English Wikipedia in general, and this sysop in particular have no tolerance for racism in any form. I also have no tolerance for calling people anti-semitic vandals because you disagree on what a source says. I’ve explained my block and stand behind it. Yaniv is free to appeal and has instructions on how to do so. As I said above, I’m not getting into a back and forth here, especially without an unblock request. I will also not allow this block to be turned into an analysis of the sourcing that should have taken place on the article talk page: the issue here is one issue alone: Yaniv’s history of tendentious editing and inability to work in a collaborative environment. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    An "analysis of the sourcing" is precisely what is required here in order to ascertain who is it fault here - if Yaniv is factually correct in his description of the edit, then he is at no fault. Mainstream Holocaust scholarship does not support what is being done in that article. Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    Even if he is correct on the sourcing, this block would be justified for the reasons I’ve already stated. This is the last comment I will make on this without an unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Good ban.....the fact people are wasting even more time trying to explain the obvious is a great example of how one editor can consume hours from other editors time.--Moxy (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

יניב הורון (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Apparently I was blocked for reverting the contributions on antisemitism in Poland by this user. I honestly thought they were not constructive and fell into WP:NOTHERE, but maybe I hastened to prejudge without looking at all the details of the dispute. I'm willing to stop editing on Polish antisemitism-related issues altogether, but I think an indefinite block is excessive and doesn't reflect my contributions in other areas. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 6:56 am, Today (UTC−9)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

יניב הורון (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

When I wrote that edit summary in History of the Jews in Poland I was writing in angst. It deeply pained me to see Holocaust history on Wikipedia described in a manner that is counter-factual and not borne out by mainstream historical scholarship on the topic. I did not realize that calling the content "antisemitic vandalism" would be perceived as an egregious personal attack. I now understand that Wikipedia administrators view such a description as a personal attack. I promise to refrain from such descriptions in the future, no matter what I personally think of the content in question. For instance, in the edit in question I should've used "distortion", "NPOV, not inline with mainstream scholarship", "misrepresentation of sources", or something similar. Should this appeal be accepted, I will take great care in my edit summaries and tone down my language. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, יניב הורון, but given the input of the blocking administrator below, and the long-term issues that you've been blocked for over time, you will need to follow Wikipedia's standard offer and request an unblock review in six months. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

@GoldenRing: Could some administrator review my appeal? Twelve days have passed without an answer. Thanks.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging TonyBallioni, the blocking admin. Unless you object or have reasons as to why I shouldn't do so, I'm inclined to accept יניב הורון's unblock request and give him/her the benefit of the doubt. What are your thoughts? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
No objection to calling TonyBallioni, but I would like to know the opinions of other administrators as well. Thanks.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oshwah, I would right now suggest that Yaniv wait the standard 6 months and then make a standard offer request to the community at AN. Given his long-term disruption in multiple topic areas (see AELOG and the diff that the IP in this history raises), I would also suggest that any unblock be conditional on an indefinite topic ban from anti-semitism and history of the Jewish people broadly construed. Yaniv is very good at making unblock requests and apologizing, and I think he is generally sincere in making them, but his actions are still disruptive and I believe if he were to be unblocked at this time he would return to disrupting the encyclopedia, even if done in good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni - I trust your judgment. Sorry, יניב הורון, but you need to read Wikipedia's standard offer, follow the guidelines, and request an unblock in six months. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Block ReviewEdit

I was blocked by TonyBallioni for making this edit using the edit summary "rv antisemitic vandalism". According to TonyBallioni this was a personal attack.

I commented on content, not the contributor, per WP:WIAPA comments on content are not personal attacks. Furthermore, if one says the truth, one is not performing a personal attack. This is recognized in law: "One of the most important and absolute defenses against a libel suit is the truth defense. Libel requires that the defamatory statement be false. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. However if the defendant shows that the statement is true, the libel suit will be dismissed".[7]

The content I removed, which stated essentially that "Jews had an "easy" time getting their property back in Poland, and many did", was a severe distortion of Holocaust history. All reputable sources agree this wasn't the case. The cited sources in the edit were misrepresented (see Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Recent edits - failed verification). They are contradicted by actual sources, from technical details (the 1945 decree was annulled by a 1946 law [8]) to defamatory misrepresentations: very few Jews got property back in Poland,[9] they were prevented from returning,[10] and up to 1500 were murdered by Poles when trying to get their property (occupied by Poles) back.[11] The purpose of Polish legislation was not concealed by Polish officials, who wanted wealth to stay out of the hands of "unproductive and parasite factors" and to avoid inheritance by "distant relatives in Argentina who engage in despicable jobs".[12]

Furthermore, as shown here, it appears the content was taken from Mark Paul. The citations (1567 bytes, 8 works) are a direct copy (same order, same page numbers, same formatting). Paul was discussed on RSN and at a RFC. Paul's views on Jews, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union are evident in the introduction of one of his internet works: "[Jewish] Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945".[13]. According to Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski: "as every researcher familiar with the historiography of the Holocaust knows - that Mark Paul does not exist. This is the pseudonym of the author (or authors) of brochures filled with anti-Semitic clichés and stereotypes that have been available on the Internet for years."[14]

My aim in reverting was positive - removing what was 180 degrees to any reasonable description of this ugly episode in Holocaust history. While I submit that I spoke the truth, I recognize that I was wrong. I should not have stated that the content was "antisemitic", but rather have said it was "false" or a "misrepresentation of sources". I should've laid out the charge of the content being antisemitic, along with supporting evidence, at a forum such as AN/I. I will not use such direct language in the future - being blocked for a substantial amount of time for using "antisemitic" in relation to reverted false information on the Holocaust has taught me a lesson on Wikipedia.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ill copy it if you like, but I assure you this will not work. If you confirm you want this copied over Ill do it for you. But trust me on this, that is not a block review that will result in anything other than "endorse block". nableezy - 20:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Do it for me, please. Thank you.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
My action can be reviewed at AN, yes, but just so you are clear before Nableezy or I copy it over, a declined appeal at AN is considered a community site ban and you are aware of that and still want it to be reviewed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
With Tony's comment Id like one more confirmation please. But Yaniv, its not gonna work. Youre going to end up "banned" over it. I personally am not rooting for that outcome, as odd as that might seem to you. So I hope you reconsider. Any block, any block, on Wikipedia, unless you can show was made out of sheer incompetence by the admin, will not be overturned with a combative appeal. The but I am right about it, that the law recognizes truth as a defense, even if that is what you think, even if it that is actually true, is going to result in a everyone at AN saying WP:NOTTHEM uphold block. You need to be contrite for your actions, regardless of anybody elses. Unless somebody writes "Hitler was right" you arent going to get people at AN analyzing whether or not something is actually antisemitic. It has to be that clear cut for you to say "reverting antisemitism". You can think that is not right, and I might even agree in some cases, but that is how it is. And your appeal above is exactly that, combative and "but Im right". Its going to be declined. nableezy - 20:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

<- This[15] editor interaction analyser report does not look good. The editor appears to have started socking as the IP 79.176.44.45 a few days after their block. On the other hand, the edits mostly look constructive. Perhaps there is a pragmatic compromise possible given that blocks often don't work in practice e.g. unblock but restrict their edits to anti-vandalism edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Overlap on Israeli/Jewish topics. Editing while Jewish is not an indication of socking.Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments that might help Yaniv find a way back to constructive editing that complies with community rules would provide the most benefit. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That in fact does not look good. Yaniv, my support for an unblock is based entirely off of the notion that you would not be socking around any other topic ban. If that is in fact you editing, and AN will have a CU find out I assure you, then you pretty much put the last nail in the coffin on this block to be honest. Your only real chance of editing without socking is the standard offer. 6 months of no socking and an unblock request where you actually focus on you and not anybody else. If that is not your editing then I still think you could be unblocked now if you made a very different appeal then the one at the head of this section. nableezy - 16:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
CU will not connect specific accounts to contributors, and cannot prove that two individuals are not the same anyway if there are behavioural similarities that are compelling enough. If someone believes there is block evasion, the best thing is to file an SPI with diffs and have a clerk or other patrolling admin evaluate. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, a massive violation of WP:CANVASS is helpful to your case? That's 25 editors chosen by an obvious algorithm. Zerotalk 09:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni Canvassing or not, how was that a personal attack? The edit summary said "rv antisemitic vandalism", therefore the vandalism is being called antisemitic, and the vandalism is an edit, not a person. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition, even if it is not the most appropriate edit summary, IMHO this is far from the typical case of personal attacks which call for a block, which are usually patterns of insulting edits or repeated grave insults. It seems to me, after reviewing an entry on your talkpage, that you are a bit too trigger happy to block editors for minor insults. And again, most importantly, in this case, no personal attack was made, and the editor commented only on the edit. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
He called an established editor a vandal over a content dispute, and no, it was commenting on a contributor, bot content. Also that was not the sole reason for this block: it was long-term tendentious editing that arose is seen in his block log and AE topic ban.
Yaniv, for your clear abuse of this talk page while blocked to canvass people to copy this to AN (and then likely support an unblock that under regular circumstances would have no chance of succeeding given both the content of the appeal and the apparent block evasion based on behaviour evidence (no comment technically), I have revoked your access to this talk page. You may appeal this block through WP:UTRS and the normal unblock process, but your gaming of the system here is 100% unacceptable. I’d suggest you wait 6 months before appealing. Also note that if your UTRS appeal is declined, UTRS access can also be revoked for abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: - Yaniv repeatedly asked for this to be copied to AN. You said you would do so following your CBAN warning. Do you have object to another editor copying this to AN? Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I would have copied this to AN myself had he not canvassed 25 people, but at this point I think AN would be a farce. If he can convince an uninvolved UTRS admin to reenable TPA and copy it, I would have no objections, but right now after the mass ping he just pulled, I don’t think a review at AN would be anything other than gaming the system. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
He didn't ping administrators (who actually really have the say at AN) - he pinged editors (some of whom appear inactive at first blush), I would assume he knows / interacted with , after his appeal wasn't copied following 2 requests here (I have this TP watched, I was deferring to you to copy it over as I know you have this watched as well) - he's unable to copy himself. While WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply to admin actions - how do you think preventing the review / blocking the TP access of a user asking a review of your own actions looks like? Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
All editors have a say at AN. That’s the main reason you would ask for review there rather than follow the normal process. I don’t think there is an issue with revoking TPA when there is a clear mechanism of review provided (again, Yaniv, you can use WP:UTRS) and when there is a clear and unequivocal violation of policy aimed at circumventing the normal consensus process. I have no issue with my actions receiving scrutiny: I do have an issue with someone who was told by multiple editors that they were willing to copy an appeal to AN deciding he didn’t like the people who showed up to copy it for him and then pinging people who would be more likely to be sympathetic. That’s an abuse of his talk page while blocked. I won’t comment in UTRS unless asked by someone reviewing it, but his actions above crossed a major behavioural line, and I think there is substantial risk that he would continue to act disruptivly if he had TPA. There is a normal process for handling these reviews. Let that process play itself out. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yaniv, I really, really hate to say this, but, while some things that happened to you vis-a-vis arbitration were indeed incredibly unjust and hypocritical, there were also a lot of mistakes on your part. I will not enumerate either of these but given my comments in the past at least some should be obvious. You care a lot about this project but your approach here is wrong. It is not up to you to forgive the project. It is up to the project to forgive you and decide you may still be a good servant in its interests. This is perhaps fucked up but it is reality. If you don't realize this you will be wasting much of your precious time suffering like Sisyphus on an impossible task -- the project is not going to admit in this way it has wronged you, especially when you are an Israeli editor focusing on PIA issues (once that is the case, Jews/Poland issues become similarly tarred -- if you had started out on and edited only Jews/Poland issues things would be different -- I do not approve of this reality but it is reality). You need either a more conciliatory approach, or to give up, because some things in life are more important than justice, like, you know, life. --Calthinus (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd add that demonstrating an ability to contribute to non-controversial areas you are interested in is the best way to come back. Even under a block, you can write material on text files and present it online when called for. --Calthinus (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that TB was in my opinion wrong to revoke TPA, and I also want to note for the record that it is interesting that certain people show up out of the blue. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your Message to MeEdit

Yaniv, I wanted you to know that there was no message attached to your message to me.Davidbena (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, no message is attached to your message to me. If it's urgent, try using the e-mail address listed on my User Page.Davidbena (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, there was no message attached to my e-mail.Davidbena (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "יניב הורון".