Hi Eliezer1987. Thank you for your work on Eitan Oster. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article! Since it falls under WP:BLP, please make sure that each sentence is properly footnoted with a reliable source. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariamnei,

Thanks for reviewing the recent biographical articles I’ve written. You’ve left the same comment about missing sources on all of them. Could you please give me an example of what information you think is unsourced or needs a citation in this particular article? Eliezer1987 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Have you been using an LLM for your edits here on Wikipedia recently? If so, could tou WP:LLMDISCLOSE:

• What tool(s) you are using, and which versions.
• What prompts, features, etc that you are using.
• What review, if any, you are doing of the LLM generated output text.

Thank you, Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I mainly use GPT 5. And I mainly use it to translate complicated parts that I originally wrote in Hebrew. Eliezer1987 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are interested in reporting potential sockpuppets at SPI for accounts active in the PIA topic area, perhaps you would be interested in investigating BasselHarfouch vs ShoBDin. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not much of an SPI investigator (and as proof, it seems my analyses aren’t exactly well-received :) ),

but I'll try to take a look in the coming days. Do you have any lead you can share with me? Eliezer1987 (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I really. I'm quite interested in ways to identify potential sockpuppets, but actually finding sockpuppets and reporting them is not very interesting for me nowadays, mainly because the effort involved in investigating/reporting is much higher than the effort involved with just creating a new sock. But if you want to have a look from a purely puzzle solving/SPI experience perspective, some things caught my eye.

• Similarities in edit summaries (and the proximity of the account registration times 2024-04-02 vs 2024-04-03) got my attention.
• So, I looked at their timecards and compared them to hundreds of other blocked socks and active editors. They are more similar to each other (and other blocked Icewhiz socks) than to other editors. See File:ShoBDin et al - histogram grid.svg
• Since they appear to live in roughly the same place or edit according to roughly the same schedule, I looked at the timing of the edits to see whether they actually edited at the same times (as 2 different people might be active at the same times), or whether they edited on different days. It seems that the latter is more the case. See File:Rugplot weekly - BasselHarfouch - ShoBDin.png
• Then I looked at article intersections to see whether they both edited the same articles with few revisions or editors. There are a couple of relatively improbable intersections which may or may not be significant.

Anyway, there you go. Feel free to ignore it all of course. I should say that the reason I left the message is because not many people are interested in filing SPIs in PIA nowadays, and there is an unfortunate tradition in the PIA topic area - it seems that we, editors in the topic area, only seem to report potential sockpuppets with the opposite position on the pro-Palestine/pro-Israel spectrum. It would be good to lose that tradition at some point. Anyway, neither of these editors seem to be causing trouble so it's more of an academic exercise if you are interested. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sean.hoyland, I saw the comparison you made, and now I've looked into it a bit more. I'll tell you what's bothering me (and I've written about this a bit in the past in the SPI discussion).

There have been dozens of articles over the past two years about bias on the English Wikipedia. There are many articles in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. At the same time, there is a (welcome) call for people to join Wikipedia editors and take part in adding more positive information. In Israel, for example, there are many Wikimedia workshops in both Jewish and Arab society among retirees, students, and other groups, encouraging people to join and write on Hebrew Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia. I assume that, among other things, they also talk there about the English Wikipedia.

I personally know people who started editing Hebrew Wikipedia following an article, a post, or a workshop.

In light of everything I've described here, it doesn't surprise me that from time to time new editors enter into the I-P conflict, and it doesn't surprise me that they would have similar characteristics such as working time ranges, account creation dates. And if these are people who were in the same workshop, it's possible that even their edit summaries were inspired by the same instructor.

There is no doubt that when there is a user who gets into unnecessary edit wars and acts aggressively to make their opinion the dominant one, we must deal with them firmly.

Regarding the specific users you sent here: I'm looking here and here. I think it's impossible to ignore Bassel's work on other Wikipedias (mainly Arabic). Another thing that really stood out to me is the difference that Bassel is somewhat active on Wikidata here, while ShoBDin isn't there at all. Eliezer1987 (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. And yes, I agree that there are several significant differences. In fact, for interest, the reason I wrote the code that looks at page intersections across all of the projects is precisely because the current tools that everyone uses (like Editor Interaction Analyser) are sort of confirmation bias machines. They show people what they want to see, the intersections and ignore the differences. They also don't include some kind of indication of the improbability of an intersection. I wanted to make the improbabilities and differences more visible e.g. there are 17 page intersections, but don't forget there are also 984 pages only edited by one or the other account, not both. Same goes for differences in their footprint across the various languages etc. But alas, many people are quite disciplined at making their accounts look different. Either way, my interest is purely technical to be honest. I'm not looking to get anyone sanctioned. If I was allowed to run a checkuser myself just to get a validation data point I would do that, and that would be the end of it. The best outcome for that AE report would be one where ShoBDin gets a better understanding of what can look disruptive to other editors and takes that into account in their editing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for that and Happy holidays. Eliezer1987 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Hostage (memoir) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 26 December 2024 Israeli attack on Yemen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/26 December 2024 Israeli attack on Yemen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 November 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Haytham Ali Tabatabai, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 02:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Hostage (memoir) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer1987, the reviewer has given you 24 hours as of earlier today to respond at the review if you wish to prevent the nomination from being closed due to lack of response to previously raised issues. Please do so right away. Thank you, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliezer1987, your recent comment Special:Diff/1325641462 constitutes battleground conduct, as you are treating Wikipedia as "a battleground between factions" with regard to the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic, instead of a collaborative project. Specifically, you posited "that every pro-Israel editor who begins to stand out positively is accused", accused multiple editors of being "engaged almost daily for over 10 years in biasing Wikipedia against Jews and Israel", and thanked an editor "on behalf of the Jewish people". Please understand that your comment is detrimental to Wikipedia's collaborative editing environment. If you wish to show your appreciation to another editor, please do so without the battleground framing. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. To be honest, I was hesitant, thinking of sending them an email, maybe writting to them on the Hebrew Wikipedia (my native language and I think theirs too). I felt it was unfair to the community to hide my feelings. As far as I understand, that's better. Of course, if you ask me to delete, I will delete. I have never hidden my opinions on Wikipedia and have always tried to behave as honestly as possible.

One last thing, I thank them on behalf of the Jewish people, and not only them, but everyone who adds positive content about my people, about their history, about their country - I am very, very grateful and think that this is an important thing for the Jewish people and for the betterment of the world.

Despite the sensitivity and madness that has been happening in recent years, I think the flames need to be lowered and I'm glad there are people here who care about knowledge.Eliezer1987 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger To clarify my point. It's not that I'm being defensive... I won't repeat it, and I won't do it again. (And like I said, if the right thing to do is delete this message - I will delete it immediately.) Eliezer1987 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer1987, thanking an editor "on behalf of the Jewish people" is not a problem by itself; that part of your comment was quite positive. However, criticizing editors who are topic banned and therefore unable to respond to your statements is a form of gravedancing, and is discouraged because "it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together". Because of the way it portrayed other editors as opponents instead of collaborators, your comment as a whole was below the standard of discourse we expect in contentious topics, which was the reason for my message here. Thank you for committing to a higher standard in the future. You are welcome to strike any parts of your comment at any time if you would like to do so, but it is not required. — Newslinger talk 12:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer, some Israel sympathetic editors are blocked because they do not follow the rules. Some Palestine sympathetic editors have also been blocked for the same reasons. WP certainly is biased and many of the sources are biased, which is the real problem, but there are ways to fix this. I have found that working collaboratively with people I disagree with has much better results, even if it takes longer and is frustrating. I hate to see great editors blocked for things that are easily avoided. Its best not to mention editors by name even if they are blocked or banned or anything. Remember, its always good to keep a "fence around the rules" to avoid accidentally breaking them. And you also mentioned LLM usage. That is best avoided. It causes too many problems, when you get more out of old fashioned searching and reading. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Israeli companies established in 2024 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you do. I have lurked Wikipedia for a long time and have noticed that antisemitism is a pervasive problem on the platform. It seems like you know a lot about this and I would love to discuss more. Please feel free to DM/email me with the button on my page! ElectronicMaccabee (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I wrote in previous conversations, I don't intend to hide my opinions and thoughts on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask anything you want here. In accordance with Wikipedia rules. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes of course, I also admire your contributions nad had some questions just on general history (i have a project for school). if you ever want to chat, just as a friend, about unrelated stuff im all for that haha ElectronicMaccabee (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You've written some nice bios. Thank you for your hard work. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Eliezer1987 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hostage (memoir), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hostage, a book written by Eli Sharabi after surviving 491 days in Hamas captivity, became the fastest-selling book in Hebrew-language publishing history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hostage (memoir). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hostage (memoir)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Eliezer1987 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bit (payment application) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit (payment application) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 05:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]