Jump to content

Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Wikipedia (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies. This group has worked its way up hewiki's permission ladder, and some of its members are now admins, checkusers and bureaucrats. In recent years, as they gained more power, they changed rules to their benefit without consulting the community; blocked and threatened opposing editors; and conducted selective enforcement of the code of conduct, many times according to political identity. These actions lead to a lot of biased and non-NPOV content, bad atmosphere among editors, and left very little chance for change. Last November hewiki has elected new bureaucrats, in a controversial elections in which many editors could not participate due to a unilateral change of the qualifications to vote or due to their inexplicable block. Most of the events described herein took place while the previous bureaucrats were "in office", but sadly the new bureaucrats seem to follow in the previous ones' footsteps: Editors are still being interrogated and threatened; only 3 of the 59 editors who were inexplicably blocked have been released, and under strict limitations (they can't participate in discussions, polls and policy design, and aren't allowed to edit "political articles"); and the biased, selective enforcement of the rules persists. Just recently the "Parliament", where we vote about policy, was re-opened after a block of more than 7 months, in what the new bureaucrats called "Ending the blocks affair and opening the parliament". Still, many dozens of editors are either blocked, have lost the right to vote in the Parliament, or were forced to refrain from voting in exchange for their unblock. We will show that hewiki is in a dark place, and needs intervention from the international Wikimedia foundation.

The situation in Hewiki is not unrelated to processes that have been happening in Israel over the past two years, as the country has been undergoing a regime transformation, usually referred to as the "judicial overhaul" or the "self-coup". During this time the government has been centralizing its power and attempting to take control of the judicial system and police, turning them into its political arms. Those who criticize or protest against these actions are defamed as traitors and are being silenced. These events led to the demotion of Israel's Democracy Grade. Since the war in Gaza and Lebanon began, anti-democratic measures have been justified by claims that the country is in a state of emergency.

Unfortunately, similar processes seem to be affecting Hebrew Wikipedia: two bureaucrats, supported by a group of administrators and editors close to them, have concentrated significant power. They changed the rules without any community discussion, poll or broad consensus; operated without transparency; implemented mass indefinite blocks of editors without any warning and without presenting any evidence; threatened the remaining editors, hinting that "more blocks are underway"; conducted secretive investigations; encouraged "snitching" on fellow editors; and singled out "internal enemies" - all under the pretext of an "emergency situation". As a result, some editors have left the project, others have significantly reduced their activity, and some continue editing while expressing great discomfort with the situation. Some other editors have expressed their will to "bow their heads until the storm is over", fearing they too will be blocked indefinitely and their (user)names tarnished. These events raise concerns about hewiki increasingly departing from the basic principles of the global Wikimedia movement.

This document summarises the events and provides evidence for the above claims. It was written by a group of editors, who are concerned that hewiki has been overtaken by a group who dictates a non-neutral, mainly nationalist and/or religious POV, and now operates to stay in power by permanently blocking editors with liberal views or those who criticise the admins and bureaucrats, and preventing those regarded as "not our own" from achieving advanced positions such as admins, checkusers etc.

Our request from Wikimedia is to perform an extensive investigation of the situation, and get involved: consider taking extreme measures such as removal of permissions and cancellation of mass blocks, impose minimal standards and policies which fit Wikimedia's core values and ideology, and establish some sort of temporary supervision over hewiki until it stabalizes.

Note (1) - During November 2024 hewiki went through an election process for new bureaucrats, and the two bureaucrats mentioned herein were replaced. Our claim is that this did not change the situation, for several reasons:

  1. The elections were held after massive one-sided blocks and changes of regulations without the approval of the community, thus heavily biasing this vote.
  2. Several irregularities in the elections were ignored by those who were supposed to oversee the process (as described in chapter 2.7).
  3. The "old guard" of powerful admins and affiliated users is still in power, and even though the bureaucrats were replaced, its members still receive a lighter treatment when they break the rules.
  4. One of the newly elected bureaucrats said openly that he intends to continue the policy of the previous bureaucrats. If the other one will want to take a different path or reverse some actions, one can assume that she will have difficulty doing so without external support.
  5. The new bureaucrats did not fix most of the problems which were caused by the previous ones, and so far it seems like they follow in their footsteps: Most of the blocked editors are still blocked (and the few released are under strict limitations), one-sided sanctions on "political editing" are still happening, etc.

And so, even after the removal of the old bureaucrats, all of the problems described in this document still exist.

Note (2) - In this document, editors are sometimes described as "liberal/conservative/religious." These descriptions are the writers' assessment, based on either the editors' explicit own declarations on their user pages, or implicit via consistent expressions of position in discussions at the village pump, talk pages, and polls.

Note (3) - Naturally, many of the links to examples and references in this document will lead to pages in Hebrew. We're aware that this will probably make this case more difficult to follow, and would like to apologize in advance for the inconvenience. However, the weight of our claims demands that we show as much evidence as possible, so we chose to provide these links. We hope that the gravity of the situation will urge you to not give up, and either use some automatic translation or turn to a trusted Hebrew speaking acquaintance for assistance. Some of the links lead to a diff page, in an attempt to prove a specific quote in a talk page - in these cases please translate the page and use the search option of your browser to find the specified quote. We will willfully answer any question and clarify any ambiguity about these links and quotes, and provide further evidence on demand.

Detailed Presentation of the Case

[edit]

Chapter 1 - Background

Chapter 2 - Specific Cases of Misconduct

Our Request for Global Wikimedia Intervention

[edit]

As detailed in this document, hewiki hasn't been functioning properly, and in recent years has been increasingly diverging from the values and principles which are the basis of the global Wikimedia movement. Dominant senior permission holders, the old bureaucrats as admins and checkusers, do not respect the rules set by the community (the slogan is "the rules are meant to serve us and not the other way around", as was openly declared here, here and in other places). These privileged users concentrate excessive powers in their own hands and are gradually leading hewiki to an "authoritarian regime" - similar to processes that occurred in the past in Croatian Wikipedia, and to the political atmosphere in the state of Israel. Sadly, the election of new bureaucrats recently didn't bring about the remedy we were hoping for.

Following these matters, we turn to you, representatives of global Wikimedia, requesting intervention in Hebrew Wikipedia's activities. Our request is that you consider taking the following steps to return hewiki to proper operational course:

  1. Perform a thorough investigation of the events mentioned in this document, in order to find out which admins, checkusers and bureaucrats were involved in mass blocks, rule-bendings, selective enforcement and any other misconduct.
  2. Appoint an "imposed trusteeship" to oversight hewiki until its situation stabilizes and the global Wikipedia principles (transparency, neutrality, diversity and inclusion, non-harmful discourse) are fully assimilated.
  3. Guide hewiki community through the process of electing bureaucrats, administrators and checkusers, who were'nt involved in the hewiki takeover.
  4. Cancel the unilateral changes to rules and regulations, and guide the community through the proper procedures of setting the rules by community vote.
  5. Establish an appeals committee, chaired by a Wikimedia Foundation official, to review the blocks cast since June 2024 and release any user whose block cannot be justified with concrete evidence.
  6. Revoke the permissions of any permission holder who took part in taking over hewiki, and consider blocking them for a significant amount of time, or banning them from adminship.

Support

[edit]

If you have suffered from the events described in this RFC, or have witnessed them and can approve that what is described here is true, please add your signature below. If you have anything to add, please add it before your signature.


  • On the one hand, new bureaucrats have been elected, demonstrating clear good intentions. On the other hand, the scope and gravity of the actions taken by their predecessors, as well as by some of current administrators who persist in following the previous direction, are considerable. While there are some inaccuracies in this complaint, the core issues remain worth examining. In my view, the good intentions fall short, and the consequences of the actions are still problematic in some ways. I believe that guidance from the foundation would benefit everyone. Freddy9 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every edit or minor change I made in an entry with even the slightest political interpretation was immediately erased and a tedious exchange was initiated. The aim was always one of attrition, not discussion: my adversaries did not even bother to read what I wrote.I got fed up and basically stopped editing and correcting existing entries. ProfPB12 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hewiki is a cesspool of bigotry and hate and until a grownup intervenes, it will only keep on getting worse. It's far beyond political. It has to do with the very essence of wikis and how the hewiki developed over the years. If need to equate wiki to a human, what's going on there rn, is a violent cancer that will be fatal if not treated aggressively. --Benderbr (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an active and responsible user, I strive to contribute positively to the community by adhering to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. . However, I was notified that I was no longer permitted to make edits, which came as a complete surprise. Not only was I not given any warning, but I also was not informed of any specific violation that led to this decision. Zo1948 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a consensus on two key points: 1. In recent months dozens of editors have been blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia. (hewiki) 2. Neither the blocked editors nor the editorial community has been provided with evidence to justify these blocks. This situation is reminiscent of troubling periods and should not happen.HanochP (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyra silvertounge (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm one of the blocked editors. I opend a rfc after all my requests from the bureaucrats have been ignored. You can read it here. Be'Ikar Yerakot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 months ago I (user: Louisis14) was completely blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia. The claim made in the announcement page was that the 43 users (me included) were blocked as they were identical to other users AND their activity patterns showed them to be working as part of an organization trying to harm the Hebrew Wikipedia. It took me by surprise to be included in such a list as I'm working on my own and tried to contribute to the Hebrew Wiki to the best of my capabilities. I've added completely new two entries, added sources and footnotes, fixed mistakes, added images as well as adding local links (and external links). Ever since then I've tried to get a response on my activities and it was in vain. Hence - leaving me in a dead-lock. I'm not getting any specific response and I can't explain why I'm not falling within their criteria (as these are not provided). Louisis14 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suffured from it and do not edit anymore.Tushtrbui (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited some Hebrew values related to the concept of parliamentary democracy - Judicial review, Separation of Powers, etc. I encountered disrespect for common knowledge, as expressed by parallel values in English, as if Israel was some very special case. For example, the right-wing propaganda about "Tyranny of The Judicial System" was considered legitimate. Eventually, I had enough of arguing with much higher-rank editors about what should have been obvious, and stopped editing. Today I edited the Hebrew value for Self Coup. I wonder how much time will my edits stay online this time. Pozuzu (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was blocked without any warning and without any explanation. I am the user sivanta 2A06:C701:7092:A400:C1FF:2C55:9F6B:D013 13:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While i concur with this document, I'd argue it's actually severely lacking in some areas. While the pattern of power grabbing and harassment has now expanded to other areas, it began with female and LGBTQ+ editors editing articles related to feminism and LGBTQ+ issues.
    There is a policy that has been semi-standing for over 8 years to misgender and deadname transgender women in articles concerning them (a policy that still very much stands in the articles that started the discussion: he:סתיו סטרשקו and he:אבי שטיין. There were instances where the anti-LGBTQ+ faction tried to use the voting mechanism to establish homophobic pseudoscience as fact or enact transphobic policies. As such, HeWiki almost (and only thanks to a great struggle did not) made the decision to present conversion therapy as a legitimate practice or treat nonbinary individuals as women and ignore their gender identity, with editors expressing homophobic or transphobic positions not being repremanded.
    After User:TMagen (one of the co-founders of the HeWiki WikiWomen group) was permanently blocked - a decision I will not comment on but whose consequences are important to the discussion - virtually every pro-LGBTQ+ or feminist editor was accused of being a TMagen sockpuppet, almost always without any basis in reality. Many decision were reversed, even in cases where it wasn't demonstrated TMagen manipulated the results, and the wiki immediately became more hostile to female and LGBTQ+ editors.
    There has also been persistent and basically untreated history of harassment of female and LGBTQ+ editors, and in particular, transgender editors. To my knowledge I am the last openly-out transgender editor still somewhat active in LGBTQ+-related discussions in HeWiki, and that's not a coincidence. Among the nicknames that were given to LGBTQ+ people in general and trans people specifically are "sick ideas", "a bunch of monkeys", "spreading a radical political genderist-progressivist agenda", etc. I myself have been subject to editors deliberately misgendering me and announcing they are doing that on purpose, or to various deliberate insults, including that I'm "a traitor to nature". After harassing me and others, those users were often given by the administrators weeks to keep on with their behavior, often repeating the offences in the very page discussing them, before being blocked. On one occasion, a user was not repremanded at all despite refusing to say what he has done wrong, with the same administrator considering that a worthy resolution later temp-blocking me for documenting the whole ordeal on my user page.
    The double standard that has been demonstrated in this long document is significantly worse when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues, with editors dealing with harassment often being punished more severely than the harassors. This, the hostile environment, the explicitly transphobic policies and the almost-implemented additional homophobic and transphobic policies, as well as other things I haven't even started discussing - such as the fact that the articles of women or LGBTQ+ people are much more likely to be deleted, or the fact that some notable instances of transphobia in the media are forbidden from being mentioned in articles - have lead to a silent exodus of LGBTQ+ and female editors from the Wiki, and honestly, I wouldn't blame anyone who left. Fighting such an uphill battle when the rules were twisted to act against you has serious negative mental health effect, that I'm sure other users who experience it now that this behaviour has expanded its reach can attest to.
    To me, the Hebrew Wikipedia can no longer be considered a reliable place for people to self-educate themselves on subjects. I and others have made our best efforts to counteract that, but the reality is the average HeWiki reader will be mislead when it comes to many critical subjects. It is now up to Global Wikimedia to decide if that remains the case, or if we are to see a change in this project.
    TalyaNe (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jag kommer inte ihåg om det var @Talya eller nån annan, men jag minns tydligt en brutal attack mot en redaktör på grund av hennes kön, vilket gjorde mig fullkomligt rasande. Det gör mycket ondare när någon skadar ens kollegor än när man själv blir attackerad, och därför sitter just det här fallet fast i mitt minne. :( Anderssøn79 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happened to a bunch of people, but it might very well be me that you remember, as in addition to users who attacked a bunch of people all at once, there were also four times (that I remember right now) when someone was harassing me specifically due to me being trans. TalyaNe (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t know if there is any requirements for adding my voice, which supports taking action to solve the deep problems with the Hebrew — or rather ‘Israeli’, because it takes a very nationalist stance, in a way that is very alien to the global Wikipedia spirit — Wikipedia. If there are such requirements, like having made so and so edits in the last so and so days, me not fulfilling these requirements is all the more another support of the need for a decisive action: I almost entirely refrain from making (substantial) edits to the Hebrew Wikipedia because of the toxic atmosphere and the way the clique of the editors who have overtaken the Hebrew Wikipedia behave. Like many, I don’t want to take a part in such a project and suffer from the hands of said editors. The fact the global Wikimedia community has not interfered adequately until now is an alienating factor from this whole multilingual endeavour for me. My user on the Hebrew Wikipedia is he:משתמש:The_Fool; my first edit was on February 2004 (well, now I feel old…). Rumpelstilzchen (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An addition: I think that in the context of this discussion, the topic of deleting the article about Israeli settler violence has to be considered. Relevant links:
    It’s unfathomable to me how such an important article has been deleted. Indeed, the fact that this article has no place in the Hebrew (=‘Israeli’) Wikipedia is indicative of the latter’s nature.
    Rumpelstilzchen (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a bot that tracks importance and deletion discussions in HeWiki. In October 2024, it detected 10 discussions during two weeks about prominent Israeli LGBTQ+ figures. Two of them were deleted and 8 of them were demoted to draft because the writer "didn't want to fight". Five out of ten of the disputes were initiated by one user, יוניון ג'ק. I talked about this incident on national radio. As far as I know, nothing was done about this incident and about this user. All the info is in this (Hebrew) blog post. --HananCohen (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to have another account on Wikipedia, but I was inactive for years and lost it. On this account (that I created only for minor edits, I don't want to become an active editor), I believe I edited Hebrew Wikipedia three times or so, and English Wikipedia around 70. That is to say, I can't prove the substance behind my words, but: I don't edit Hebrew Wikipedia anymore as I'm a lot more leftist than your average Israeli and than Hebrew Wikipedia's political stand. I know any real, contributing edits will only be reverted, and I don't see a reason to waste my time arguing whether some facts should be removed from Hebrew Wikipedia because it "supports Iranian propaganda" (I do not have a link, sorry; But I'm sure you could find it mentioned somewhere here). RatherQueerDebator (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can read Hebrew and have looked at some of the heated discussions and general climate of harassment. Political discussions are getting heated everywhere, but it's absolutely getting unacceptably worse on hewp. Shushugah (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

I want to share that today the Hebrew Wikimedia Foundation published data from a survey conducted among hewiki editors in July-September 2024, immediately after the waves of blocks described above. The link to the survey findings can be found here: presentation, Excel. Some of the data presented there seems relevant to this complaint:

• Most editors (61%) believe that conflicts are generally not well resolved in Hebrew Wikipedia

• About a fifth of editors reported that they fell victim to harassment from other editors in the past year (26% of female editors, which comprise only 16% of all editors, and 20% of male editors)

• Only 3% of editors believe that permanent blocking of editors will help prevent conflicts in Hebrew Wikipedia (53% believe that stricter enforcement of existing procedures and 50% believe that improving procedures will help)

• 31% of female editors believe that low participation of women in Wikipedia stems from a violent atmosphere and discourse Sofiblum (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

User:Neriah's comments

[edit]

I have not read everything written here, but it is important to emphasize that the information is presented in a completely one-sided and biased manner, concealing the negative aspects of the actions taken by the blocked editors, as well as the awareness of the former bureaucrats that this was an emergency situation. Without taking a stance, I must note that the actions of the bureaucrats stemmed from a situation where in any vote, the decision was not encyclopedic but rather an internal conflict between various factions on the political spectrum, often using improper means.

The bureaucrats acted by implementing blocks and temporarily halting parliamentary votes—a period that was extended due to some of them being on reserve duty. (The parliament reopened earlier this week, alongside the unblocking of several contributors who had made significant contributions to the project unrelated to politics, such as Danny W, who signed above.) Their assumption was that this would make Wikipedia less political, allowing for proper adherence to NPOV (neutral point of view).

A contrasting example can be seen in the Arabic Wikipedia, where political biases are evident. According to their perspective, the Israeli Chief of Staff is a terrorist seeking ethnic cleansing and genocide, whereas the terrorists who murdered, kidnapped, and raped mercilessly on October 7 are labeled freedom fighters. In contrast, the Hebrew Wikipedia strives to combat political biases on both sides of the political spectrum. (It is worth noting that, apart from the liberals who approached Meta and made considerable noise, dozens of conservatives were also blocked.)

Additionally, the false impression presented by איתמראפשר that the Hebrew Wikipedia is in turmoil under the actions of the former bureaucrats is incorrect. Many Wikipedians support the actions of the bureaucrats, which have significantly reduced bias in the article space on both sides. (On a personal note, I identify—despite not engaging in politics at all—with one of the factions from which most of the blocked editors originate. I believe the blocks saved Wikipedia from politically motivated decisions, though I agree with the sentiment that losing contributing editors is unfortunate. For example, you can see on the he:ויקיפדיה:בירורים page that there is now a proposal to unblock another editor who contributed significantly. Many, including those who opposed the unblocking a few months ago, now support it due to her promise to cease improper vote recruitment activities.)

I will try to read the materials and respond later. However, as someone who was not involved in reviewing the findings, I cannot provide answers to most questions. I am speaking as someone who has observed the developments on Wikipedia and regrets seeing the blocking of several editors he greatly respects and has worked with on several occasions—most of whom remain blocked. Neriah - 💬 - 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neriah's last paragraph says it all: he admits that he didn't see any evidence against the editors who were blocked, but still he quotes the "official narrative" about the so called "state of emergency", "recruited groups" etc. as if they were verified facts. It's a matter of sheer belief, or faith, which acoording to his own words, is not based on anything but rumors and hearsay. Also, his claims that many editors support the bureaucrats' acgions is unverifiable, as no poll was made before or after they took these actions, and if a poll would be made it would not include dozens of opposers - because they've been blocked... איתמראשפר (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No survey has been conducted on the matter, but from numerous discussions among editors, it is clear that many support the actions, spanning both ends of the political spectrum. This does not negate the existence of opposition to these actions; there are always dissenters. I, too, oppose some of the disproportionate actions that were taken, as well as certain blocks imposed on veteran editors (incidentally, most of whom are liberal, and some of them have added their signatures here). I am more than willing to see these editors return. However, it is important to remember that the actions, even if extreme and disproportionate, have contributed in some way or another.
In addition, perhaps I did not explain myself well, but I am familiar with the evidence against some of the blocked editors, though not all of them. This is not a matter of belief. The bureaucrats were entrusted with the community's confidence upon their appointment. Therefore, even those who oppose these actions should believe that the bureaucrats are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, not against them. This would allow for better dialogue and a compromise that could enable the return of all blocked editors (of course, except for those identified as sock puppets or through checkuser).
I hope this will be my final message on this matter. I have invested considerable time in this complaint and do not believe anything beneficial can emerge from it for either side.
Thanks. Neriah - 💬 - 10:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Danny-w removing his signature

[edit]

Please pay attention to the revision history: A left-leaning editor who added his signature to this appeal encountered incitement and threats from right-leaning editors and administrators, including a right-leaning bureaucrat, and subsequently removed it. This is a striking example for anyone seeking to understand the current state of Hebrew Wikipedia. It is evident that outside help is needed. I am adding my signature to this appeal. Thank you - La Nave Partirà (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I observed is that this editor did not read the entire text and assumed it referred to the previous bureaucrats who had blocked him. When the new bureaucrats wrote to him on his talk page, he apologized, stated that he shared the criticism of the former bureaucrats but not the new ones, and subsequently removed his block. I will translate his statement, found in his talk page on Hebrew Wikipedia: "I admit that I did not read the entire text but only part of it. I share the anger against the former bureaucrats who unjustly blocked me, but I do not share the criticism against you. Therefore, I have now removed my signature there."
La Nave, I know you as a dedicated and honest editor, and I regretted your block because it meant we lost your contributions to the mainspace. It pains me that you, someone I respect, chose to exploit the fact that those responsible for handling this request do not speak Hebrew and cannot verify the details themselves, to write false statements that harm the new bureaucrats—who genuinely did nothing to you—while associating them with (incorrect) political factions and describing their actions in unblocking as political.
Danny was unblocked this week in an action by the same "right-leaning bureaucrat" you claimed threatened him. I think instead of accusing him of harming the project, it's appropriate to express gratitude. Thank you, Erez, for lifting Danny’s block, thereby enabling him to return and contribute to the mainspace—a contribution that was sorely missed during his months of blocking. Neriah - 💬 - 07:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order to get unblocked, Danny had to promise he won't vote in polls, won't participate in talks, and won't edit in "political articles" (a conveniently ambigious term). It's also worth noting that he removed his signature only after a group of right leaning users, including the bureaucrat Erez, attacked him on his talk page for signing, blamed him for "being ungreatful" and insinuated they might regret the unblock. 77.137.79.99 07:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to believe those around me. Danny could have written that he chose to remove his signature to avoid getting involved in the dispute about the bureaucrats, but he chose to write that he hadn’t read everything, and since the matter concerns the new bureaucrats as well as the old ones, he decided to remove his signature. This is what led me to make my previous statement, but it would be good if Danny could respond himself. That way, we’ll know the exact reason. Neriah - 💬 - 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Neriah is right. I agree with the written about the previous bureaucrats. However, when I signed, I did not read the text to the end. When I realized that complaints were also made about the new bureaucrats, I removed my signature. It's too bad that there is no distinction. Danny-w (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Danny-w (talk)There is no separation between the previous bureaucrats and one of the new bureaucrats, who barely passed the vote, because he continues exactly the path of the previous ones. He continues with the investigations and demands for personal documents. He did you no favor by releasing you under humiliating conditions, because you did not break any rules on the Hebrew Wiki and did not receive a warning as required. אמא של (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Danny-w, after seeing the threats and allegations of "ungratefulness" on your talk page after you signed this RFC, I don't blame you for stepping back. You are such a devoted Wikipedian, that you'd agree to any humiliating terms only to get back to editing, and I understand that the last thing you want is to get blocked again for the terrible crime of asking Wikimedia to examine the situation in hewiki from up close. I only have to address your claim that we didn't make a distinction between the previous and the new bureaucrats: of course we did. We have addressed the change of bureaucrats several times, in several sections of the RFC, and we have shown why that change of personnel did not bring about the hoped change in conduct. I love you and respect you so much, you are one of the best Wikipedians I've ever known, and I wish you many more years of quality contributions. איתמראשפר (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About User:איתמראשפר (IthamarEshpar)

[edit]

It is important to note that איתמראשפר was banned from Wikipedia after he opened WhatsApp groups for political influence on Wikipedia, and then even threatened another user, which caused him to be declared a troll. He sees Wikipedia editing as a political struggle, not a struggle to create a free encyclopedia. He continues his bias attempt here, after being removed from the Hebrew Wikipedia. ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ס.ג'יבלי you have told me personally that you didn't see any evidence which supports these allegations, so it's obvious that you too are just quoting what you were told by the privious bureaucrats. I didn't open any WhatsApp group, I didn't try to create any political influence in Wikipedia, and I'm just one of several authors in this RFC. If you choose to believe any story you're told, that's your choice and I respect it, but please don't echo these stories as if they're facts, because then you're offending me, and that's against Wikipedia code of conduct. איתמראשפר (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Remarks by User:Tzafrir, which led to some fixes in the RFC

[edit]

It is clear to me that Itamar (איתמראשפר) deeply cares about Hebrew Wikipedia. Indeed it seems that we have a group of people who deeply care about the Hebrew language Free encyclopedia. However right now this series of endless non-constructive discussions serve little to actually fix root causes of the problems. Tzafrir (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzafrir I totally agree with you, and I urge you to read the entire RFC and tell me if you found any mistake or untruth in it. I'll be happy to correct any such error you'll find. Although I didn't write all of the RFC, I sure proof-read it more than once and visited the links to make sure they support the claims they're linked to. I do wish hewiki community could handle the situation and fix it without any help from outside, but so far it seems that it's not hapenning. איתמראשפר (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very first thing I noticed was your note that the hewiki settled on roughly 7000 editors in 2010, with a link to a graph that is only for 2003-20010, whereas the hewiki continued to grow. Also, as someone else noted, if you mentioned the title given to Orit Strook in 2013, you should also mention that this was reverted in 2022. Your note about The Biblical story about Moses refers to an edit in Wikidata and not in hewiki (by a user that seems to edit in yiwiki. And was fixed a while later by a user of hewiki). This is just in 1.1 and 1.2 and without reading it too carefully. Tzafrir (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tzafrir The graph clearly shows a halt in hewiki's growth around 2007, at roughly 7,000 users. But the document doesn't claim that it stayed at that size ever since - it's just the beginning of the hewiki story, and it's obvious from the text: it mentions further growth after 2010, with more graphs, especially two peaks which are correlated with Yesha Council's "zionist editing" courses and Hidavroot's "atheist Wikipedia" campeigns. It goes further on to mention even further growth in later years.
Regarding Orit Strook, the false information was inserted not long after Yesha Council's courses began, by a 55% majority of either nationalist editors or by editors who have no idea what a "human right activist" is, and didn't bother to check. This clear outright falsehood took almost 10 years to fix, woth endless discussions in the talk page, another vote which was won by 52.5%, and only after many liberal users joined Wikipedia during the years of en:2018–2022 Israeli political crisis.
Regarding the mount Sinai, the Hebrew description "a historical event" was added in mid 2017. That falsehood stayed untouched for two years, until changed to the ambigious "biblical event" in 2019, and only in late 2022 it was fixed to the correct term: "biblical story". So it's the same pattern again like Orit Strook: a religious/nationalist falsehood is inserted during the decade of religious/nationalist takeover, no one bothers or succeeds in removing it, until the political crisis in Israel caused many liberal and secular users to join and fix things. The fact that many liberals joined hewiki since 2019 and started to turn the ship around, and that the mass blocks of editors and refusal to give liberals admin permissions are the reaction to this process, is one of this document's claims, and I think it provids enough evidence to prove it.
If you look through talk pages you'll find some religious nationalists grunt about "activists joining Wikipedia during the last 3-4 years". Remember that the original bureaucrats' plan was to limit voting right to users with 5,000(!) edits or more, which practically mean users who joined hewiki before 2020 or so. Don't you see the correlation? איתמראשפר (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their plan was to make voting less common and make people resort to other means before that, and try to avoid votes as the usual way of conflict resolution. This limitation was intended to only be part of that. It saddens me to see that not much has been done towards that goal. Tzafrir (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tzafrir as you may know, I was one of the leading voices against polls in hewiki, even before it became a popular stance (note that it began to be popular only when the religious/nationalists started to lose). I was very active in discussions about minimizing the need for polls, and over the years I have suggested several alternative methods to solve disputes, but usually received the response "yeah, it's a bad way, but we never found a better one". The bureaucrats' plan to allow only super veteran users to vote is not a way to minimize votes but to maintain the control of "the old guard" over content. איתמראשפר (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor's response following the support by Anderssøn79

[edit]

An interesting decision to add your signature here. You have been identified as a 'troll' following long-term harassment of multiple users, cementing your place among the ranks of disruptive individuals. This follows your blocking, which was due to harassment of other editors originating from your IP address.

User:NilsHolgersson2's comment

[edit]

This is spot on. It's quite disappointing that the new bureaucrats did not lift the blocks on those users. If I may add— as has been pointed out numerous times— not only was the evidence kept hidden, but the rules cited as the basis for these blocks were never formally approved. Instead, they were added by a single user after an informal discussion. Moreover, the blocks were indefinite, which is an extreme measure in the Hebrew Wikipedia community. NilsHolgersson2 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About trying local solutions

[edit]

Thank you for starting this RfC. It seems like a situation with a very complex history, but overall there seem to be some systemic power abuse allegations, which would potentially violate the UCoC. Have you exhausted all local options to resolve this issue? Does the Hebrew Wikipedia community acknowledge the issue? Or do we think that the local community is in a situation where they can not speak up due to the risk of arbitrary bans? If you believe all local options are exhausted and you can prove that, I think it might make sense to file a case for the U4C review. Their format is very structured, allowing the U4C, as well as the global community, to more easily follow the details. Also, this way the accused parties can share their version of the story. If you decide to do so, I would suggest being more concise and sharing only the most important diffs/links that represent the overall situation. Meanwhile, wishing everyone a great 2025 and hoping all WMF projects come closer to an inclusive state where everyone feels comfortable contributing. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, TheJoyfulTentmaker, a notice was given to the editors of the Hebrew Wikipedia, but in response they used the Hebrew expression "גורמים זרים" ("foreign elements"), which in Israeli-Hebrew typically refers to external threats, such as terrorist organizations, hostile states, or forces outside Israel seeking to undermine its security or stability. One of the editors used this term was Neriah, who responded above to Itamar.
Additionally, the editor known as "Bikoret," who was one of the trio (i.e. one of the bureaucrats), saw the complaint and referred to the editors who dared to join and testify about what had occurred as follows: "It is very unfortunate that some respected members of the community (albeit a few) do not show the proper greatness of spirit to disassociate themselves from this gang and put an end to this embarrassing conduct."
In other words, there is no one to talk to there. It is worth noting that most of the respondents have a religious background, and some even have a user template stating, "This user believes that the right to the Land of Israel belongs solely to the Jewish people."
On a more personal note, consider that your involvement (as a Turk) is likely to awaken the venomous machinery that will attack you personally for being neither Israeli nor Jewish. As someone who has suffered from this, I recommend that you bring along several other editors and respond with an iron fist to any display of racism. Do not allow it to take root, not even at the outset. Anderssøn79 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I don't think that notification counts as a local solution. Is there any local procedure to file an objection to the admin actions? Is there any chance to start a local RfC? If those options were available and not tried in good faith, the U4C may simply decline to consider the case. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The complaints are based on half-truths. Which are worse than a whole lie.
  2. The Hebrew Wikipedia has well-functioning complaint and self-monitoring mechanisms, which allow you to complain and appeal any action taken. And even to remove system operators and Bureaucrats.
לבלוב (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoyfulTentmaker In Chapter 2.1.1 you'll find a link to this table, which lists all the blocked users and sums their action. As you'll see in there, 23 out of 59 blocked editors appealed on their talk pages, but only two received any response (both responses were instant rejection). Similarly, 11 editors have submitted an RFC in Meta, but no bureaucrat have responded in any of them, although they were tagged in several cases. Several blocked editors (including myself) have tried to communicate with bureaucrats and/or admins privately, via e-mail, in an attempt to sort things out - but to no avail.
In hewiki there are no "appeal committee"s, RFC option, T&S or U4C teams etc. The bureaucrats have the final word, so there's really no one you can turn to to appeal a bureaucratic decision. As the person above me said, there IS an option to vote on removing an admin's (or bureaucrat's) permissions, but once you're blocked you can't open such a vote, or participate in it, so that path is not really available. (besides, you'll need to get a large majority in order to remove someone's permissions, and with so many users blocked and many others afraid to vote against those in power, it would be impossible).
So to answer your question: The options of a local solution are very few and very flawed, but we tried them anyway. One of the reasons that this RFC was published such a long time after the events have happened, is that we tried to solve the situation locally in several different ways, and failed. איתמראשפר (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The current bureaucrats only recently took office and are carefully examining all previous blockages, see the unblocking announcement:HE:וק:מזנון#סיום פרשת החסימות ופתיחת הפרלמנט.
  2. HE:וק:בירורים. This page can also be used to appeal blocks, as there is currently a discussion underway about unblocking one of the blocked users.
לבלוב (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took the time to read (using Google Translate, thank you very much) the discussions that a user named "Lavalov" referred to.
In those pages, I repeatedly saw references to Itamar, even when there was no logical connection between him and any user under discussion, and I quote:
This is becoming a pattern. An editor banned on Hebrew Wikipedia is unblocked by the two new bureaucrats and immediately slanders Hebrew Wikipedia and the State of Israel to the 'goyim.' After Danny, now it's Sima Shimoni, who supported the defamatory complaint on Meta and added false accusations about the harassment and discrimination of women in Hebrew (or rather Israeli) Wikipedia by religious editors who allegedly try to push women out. Funcs and Erez, is this what you mean by 'contributing to the project'? Are you 'fixing injustice' by causing injustice to the entire Hebrew Wikipedia? Is this how things work now that you're in charge? Lies and false accusations now function as a weapon of intimidation to overturn bans. I don't see any signs of shame from you, given the darkness and oppression reigning in that Wikipedia where you hold the highest position – at least according to the accusers' version – the banned editors you’ve already unblocked and those you’re about to unblock very soon. The heavy damage to Wikipedia is already starting to be recorded under your names. End quote.
Among the three editors whose blocks were lifted, there is one female editor. Out of curiosity, I looked at her talk page and found that no one had ever contacted her. The only message there was a generic "Welcome" notice and nothing more.
One more thing regarding the editor quoted above: looking at his talk page, you will see that it contains the following text: Pour out Your wrath upon the Gentiles… Pour out Your anger upon them; may Your burning wrath overtake them. Pursue them in anger and destroy them.
These are the faces of the editors on Hebrew Wikipedia. Anderssøn79 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Can you provide accurate bibliographic sources for the quotes you presented?
2. How do you know this is a "representative sample"? לבלוב (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the first quote can be found here: [1]. A link to the second quote can be found here: [2]. It can be observed that the page for English-speaking readers does not contain these elements: [3].
Is this a representative example that reflects the broader picture? In my understanding, absolutely. It also aligns with the general culture in practice. Like any human group, there are exceptions, but there is also a rule. In this case, the example reflects the rule. Anderssøn79 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the previous bureaucrats acted outside community rules, for example, by indefinitely blocking experienced editors without warning or using gradual blocks. The two new bureaucrats have initiated a review of blocked editors, and have already unblocked several, some with specific (likely painful) restrictions. My concern is twofold:
1. As previously noted by others, the justification for these blocks stemmed from a contentious modification of community guidelines. 2. The Hebrew Wikipedia's apparent efforts to regulate editors' activities beyond Wikipedia-controlled platforms (particularly private WhatsApp conversations) seem to overstep established boundaries. However, this may warrant a separate discussion.
Lastly, while I too am not happy with the current situation and not sure we're heading out of this crises, I deeply disagree with @Anderssøn79 statement that "there is no one to talk to there". I honestly think that we can at least talk to bureaucrat @Funcs. She seems approachable and very caring for Hebrew Wiki as well as for the community rules and guidelines. Thanks, Pixie.ca (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:Pixie.ca, I just wanted to give you an update. Nine days ago (on the 6th), I reached out to the new bureaucrat as you suggested, since it was said they’re (she’s) open to dialogue. So far, I haven’t heard back, not even behind the scenes. Do you still believe there’s someone willing to engage? Anderssøn79 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anderssøn79, I think it proves nothing. I judge by her constant communication with the members of the He wiki in Hebrew pages. I still think she is approachable and willing to engage. I already saw actions of reviewing the previous bureaucrats and undoing blocks, as well as leading the way in an attempt to improve the harsh language some editors are using in discussions. Thanks, Pixie.ca (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The case of User:לובר (Louvre)

[edit]

Hello Pixie.ca, I edited with you in the He WP (Neriah asked us to restore edits of an anonymous troll). I applied ארז האורז at least three times on his talk page here, but he did not reply. It seems that he thinks that he sits in the Bastille. Well, I am not the Hamas nor an angry French nation. I am an Hebrew editor who contributed a lot and got a ban. May you be interested in this policy. ביקורת repeated it (under a new user), but Barak a was subjected to the WMF. He did not have to obey to the bureaucrats, even if the harrasment came from a confirmed troll. In the He WP, the Fruit of the poisonous tree was not exist, as we might learn also from La Nave Partirà and פעמי-עליון. Louvre|Talk 14:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. HE:ויקיפדיה:בודק/בקשות לבדיקה/ארכיון 34#עוד בובות קש של החסום הבלתי נלאה.
  2. Wikipedia:CheckUser It's a Wikipedia tool. I have no idea how it works, but the test results leave no room for doubt.
נהג (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please do not tag me. I do not want to get such a notice before the bed time.
  2. I am not a troll. In the He WP, only a bureaucrat determines if a user is a troll. The user in question is not a troll, neither.
  3. As נהג showed at the link here, Barak, a checkuser, wrote clearly that קרוליס was a troll who continuously harassed the user in question. La Nave Partirà knew this troll and wrote about it in her user page ("the troll who joined חיים 7").
  4. The reply showed the incompatibility to the He WP administrator role.
  5. I do not trust checking a user which lasts two months, as it is also shown at the link which was put here.
  6. User:TheStriker, who was also a checkuser, identified two users as a troll. User:PurpleBuffalo, who is a checkuser as well as He WP administrator, listed the two users at the He WP troll's page. User:מקף, who was He administrator but not a checkuser, hid the both users from the troll's page. Louvre|Talk 22:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @לובר, I do remember you. Unrelated to that small contribution we had made together to He Wiki, I was about to write to you that you should have disclosed for the non-Hebrew readers, that at least part of the edits you listed above as unauthorised deletions had an editing note justifying the deletion by stating "troll" (I say "part" because I had only checked some of them). I am not fully versed in the details leading to declaring your username was as a Troll, but I do remember seeing that. As that had happened, to the best of my knowledge both @נהג and @Barak a were acting according to the He wiki rules by removing your edits. There are enough troubling incidences described in the RfC that I think we can just refer to them rather than bring up new issues, as painful as they were. Pixie.ca (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pixie.ca, where in the He WP, did a bureaucrat declare me or the other user as a "troll"? My issue was relevant as well as TalyaNe's issue. Louvre|Talk 10:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this edit summary.
On November 30, 2024 I definitely was a user like all the other users, and Neriah wrote it on his talk page: "Deal with the mainspace, not with the checkusers. Good luck".
It was exactly what I did on Nov. 30. I talked with Ewan2, got their clear permission to edit the article which they created, and in the end, returned the template which they put. I wrote it clearly in my edit summary on Nov 30. Ewan2 put the template, not me.
It is the third He WP administrator who made a mistake. He also did not ask Ewan2 if he could remove the template, but examined the He WP namespace, looking for my edits. He found nothing, and removed the template which Ewan2 put. Louvre|Talk 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created the article Women (1969 film) in Hebrew.
I tagged Ovedc and welcomed him to make a new article in the Hebrew WP, crediting me as the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence requested. All Ovedc had to do in the He WP, was to write "User:לובר/נשים" in his edit summary, but he did not.
Thus the He WP lost an article which was written in other ten languages. Another article of mine in the He WP was written in 13 languages. Why did not Barak a, נהג or Neriah delete it? Because they did not dare.
Barak a, as a He WP checkuser, did nothing for two continuous months. He responded only after I had thanked ארז and Funcs as well as the checkusers. He must govern. It was the reason why he deleted also my talk page in the He WP, which was full of praises. Please see these photos. Did Barak learn something from Israelhayom? He works there.
If someone wishes to defend Barak, Barak, as a He WP administrator, was responsible for revealing a person by חיים 7 on the talk page of an article. The person has never written in the He WP. Afterards, a troll stole their identity and was blocked as a troll. The link which חיים 7 put, is still in the talk page of the article in the He WP. HaShumai deleted it as a He WP administrator, but חיים 7 did return it, in spite of it was a link to a webite of a person who has been arrested several times by the Israel Police. Louvre|Talk 15:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this by chance. I would like to emphasize that the user "לובר" is permanently banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia and was previously globally blocked. He was released from the global block after two years and three months. Since then, he has continued to create numerous accounts on Hebrew Wikipedia and has evaded his ban using multiple sockpuppet accounts. Interestingly, he is also exploiting an unrelated complaint, similar to Anderssøn79, who has been declared a troll and continues to harass users on Hebrew Wikipedia (just this week, I blocked an IP address he used to harass a veteran user). Neriah - 💬 - 14:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As seen in my global user, I have never been "globally blocked". A global block is made upon i.p. users, and I never use any i.p.
  2. For the same reason, I did not use i.p. for harassing any veteran user. The harassing i.p. was Sasson or another one, as Neriah claimed. I do not have any issue with the veteran user. Sasson faked signatures of the He WP admins and checkusers, and faked others. I have not yet been answered why Makaf unlisted two trolls which were identified by TheStriker and PurpleBuffalo. Makaf also became a ghost, and has to revoke its He WP admin permission.
  3. TheStriker, PurpleBuffalo and Barak a know that the harassing i.p. was not of mine, as well as its hardware. They may try to fake the results of the i.p., as they did with לובר (it was the reason why it took two months). In this case, they will loss the last trust of the He WP community.
  4. You saw what Amit wrote about i.p. They are not members of the community, but Funcs warned Amit.
  5. Neriah "claimed" "numerous users". None of them was checked by the checkusers. My single account was checked during two months. In other words, the checkusers did not have any reason to check my account, which was harassed by a declared and confirmed troll (Sasson). Sasson harassed also Tali Aviv. What did he want from her. The answer was that he was a troll.
  6. Barak took an action only after I had thanked the He WP bureaucrats for their policy, which was revealed as null.
  7. As Eldad wrote clearly today at 4:38am (IST), blocking a talk page of a user who was not a troll, vandal or cursing, is not applicable. Therefore, the deed of Barak violated the Wikimedia rules.
  8. Niv suggested "Trumpsfer" as a new name for the plan of Trump. It is also unapplicable.
The WMF sees the replies of Neriah and Niv, and understands the incompetence of part of the He admins. You may see an answer of an En WP admin, and see the difference. Louvre|Talk 16:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It amuses me to correspond with a highly active troll from Hebrew Wikipedia... I never claimed that you harassed outside your account like the troll "Sasson." I wrote that you are a permanently blocked and banned user on Wikipedia and that your main account was also globally locked for a period.
Regarding the claim that the CU findings are falsified, the Stewards have the ability to check your global account themselves and verify your connection to the other blocked accounts and additional sockpuppets. However, it can also be told that identifying you is not solely dependent on CU. In fact, I don't believe CU was involved in identifying you, as there was no CU request granted on the request page.
As an experienced and prolific troll, the veteran members of the community, particularly the checkusers, can recognize you from miles away—without any need for CU. For certain reasons, you were not blocked earlier, and it took several months until the block was enforced. However, you should know that you were identified long before that.
One last thing—regarding your claim that blocking you from your talk page violated policy, from the very sentence you quoted, you can see that there is a clear reservation stating that in the case of obvious trolls, the talk page should indeed be blocked.
I would suggest that you leave us alone. After many years of abuse and creating numerous sock accounts, we have had enough. We no longer need you or your disruptions.
Goodbye. Neriah (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. נריה nor Neriah are not a steward, a CU nor a He WP bureaucrat, and have no mandate to "identify" or "declare" anyone.
  2. My main account has never been globally handled.
  3. Sasson harassed the veteran user, not me. I am not Anderssøn79 nor the second user, which nobody says their name.
  4. Checking me was false because it took two months. Nobody can cure it. Kirk went back to the 20th century and took two whales to the 23rd century. נריה cannot return the time backwards.
  5. Therefore, their claim of "certain reasons" was not valid neither. Their claim showed only one thing: There was no damage of the He WP: no WhatsApp chats, no groups, no explosive articles. The rule of ביקורת was vaild, also upon כוכב קטן who harassed ידך-הגדושה. Unlike כוכב קטן, I did not harass anyone. Barak, Neriah and נהג broke this rule. It was their clear fault, not mine. As I have already written, they blocked only after I had thanked the bureaucrats. Afterwards, נהג permission was revoked by the bureaucrats. He also made a non-valid voting, and asked to block the user who declined their illegal vote.
  6. The claim "miles away" revealed a group of He WP admins and checkusers who did not do any CU (נריה: "In fact, I don't believe CU was involved in identifying you, as there was no CU request granted on the request page."), but ran after imaginary ducks. Their claim: "without any need for CU", approved that the CU in question was false. Applying any steward for an additional CU voids the mandate of the He WP checkusers.
  7. Neriah uses the sock נריה without declaring about it. Both socks wrote here. Neriah is a global rollbacker and renamer as well as a He WP admin. נריה is not.
  8. נריה digs deeper the abyss of the He WP admins and bureaucrats.
  9. Everybody reads the answers of נריה and sees two things of this person: CIR and NOTHERE. Louvre|Talk 07:42, 10 February 2025 (IST)
I will respond to the points you raised, hoping that this will be my final reply to you.
1. I will decide what to call whom. I did not declare you a troll on Hebrew Wikipedia because I have no authority to do so. I stated that you are a blocked user who has created multiple accounts after being blocked, and you continue to do so without stopping. Whether you are officially designated as a troll on Hebrew Wikipedia or not, I may refer to you as a troll according to the dictionary definition of an Internet troll. You can also see that I did not block you because I was not certain of your identity, and those who did block you acted after consulting and conducting checks with multiple editors.
2,3. I did not associate you with "Sasson," and I do not understand your claim against me. I did not claim that you harassed anyone—I stated that you are a blocked user evading a block. Your main account was globally locked (and in this very response, you admitted that your current account is a sockpuppet by writing "My main account"). I will not provide further details here. If any steward wishes, I will gladly send them additional details via email, not in a place where you can see them.
4. I am curious where you invented the claim that CU was used. You have no way of knowing this, just as I do not. The stewards have the means to check, and they can verify it themselves. However, you yourself wrote that you admitted to the bureaucrats that you are the same user. Interesting…
5. No WhatsApp, no influence groups—just a sockpuppet. There is no dispute that such accounts should be blocked, except perhaps by you and your fellow trolls. As for your next claim, no sysop permissions were revoked. The permissions of "Lavluv" were simply not renewed after a community discussion. Please stop distorting information. Barak and I did not break any rule—Barak blocked you because you are a sockpuppet, and I, aside from responding to you, had no involvement in your case.
6. As mentioned, I am not a CU, so I cannot confirm whether CU was used or not. I only pointed out that you are such a well-known troll that no check is necessary to identify your disruptive behavior.
7. Oh, really? Try accessing user:נריה, and you will see that it explicitly states that it is my sockpuppet. A declared sockpuppet, used to allow me to edit without two-factor authentication. I also noted this in my main user page on Hebrew Wikipedia.
8,9. Appalling and false ad hominem accusations—if you continue with them or alter others' statements, I will request your block.
Final point; I am done with this matter. You have wasted enough of my time. I will try not to respond here anymore and suggest you do the same. Enjoy your time outside Wikipedia... Neriah (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My main account is לובר.
  2. If any CU has been done upon me in the He WP, it was false, because it took two months.
  3. Applying a steward voids the He WP CU. Please see also section 6 below.
  4. Sasson made the request (Barak wrote it. You may also see the i.p. on the talk page which I mentioned here at 15:05, 22 January 2025), and Barak obeyed Sasson. Sasson requested also a CU of Tali Aviv, who registered WP after me.
  5. נריה did not explain why the rule of ביקורת had to be broken by Barak, נריה and נהג. The last two broke the rules by using wrong nouns.
  6. What נריה does now is WP:SNOW. Louvre|Talk 22:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:HanochP

[edit]

@HanochP - Consensus? You mention several dozens of blocks, so I must assume you also refer to the blocks of June 2nd 2024 (section 2.1.1 in the RFC). If you read the discussion about it you see that at the time there was a clear consensus that those blocks were needed and justified. That consensus broke at June 9th with the second wave of blocks. There seems to be a consensus that almost all editors blocked on June 2nd were blocked for a good reason. So please be more specific: which blocks do you refer to? Tzafrir (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tzafrir I can't speak for HanochP, and I hope he'll find the time to reply soon and explain his remark. But I must say that, after reading the discussion you mentioned, I can't agree with your claim that it shows "a clear concensus that those blocks are justified". Of course there are some supportive comments, but most of the community seems to be surprised and baffled. In the initial announcement about the blocks, the bureaucrats referred to the blocked editors as "sock puppets" and promised that in the near future they'll fix any error which may have occurred in the check process. This caused several users to support reluctantly, expressing their hope that sometime soon, any mistakes will be fixed and an explanation will be provided - as examples of such reactions, see users like ליש and רונאלדיניו: the 1st is now a strong opposer to the blocks and advocates a complete amnesty for the blocked users, and the other has signed this RFC.
Other participants in that discussion informed the bureaucrats that some of the so called "sock puppets" are real people and shouldn't be blocked. Others express a concern about the blocks being executed without any warning, and others simply express surprise. I couldn't see any clear concensus that the blocks were "needed and justified", like you said, but a general trust that the bureaucrats are trying to do thd right thing - which is the basic, healthy, "good will" assumption, which is supposed to be our first reaction to events.
But as time went on - no errors were fixed, no explanation was given, no evidence were presented, very few appeals were addressed, the Parliament remained blocked, and editors who dared to express their concern were either blocked or threatened, so the distrust in the good will of the bureaucrats grew. As of now, over 30 users have signed this RFC, and I dare to believe that more are coming. I also know about several editors who are afraid to sign, especially after some of those who did sign were attacked in talk pages as "being ungrateful", "damaging hewiki" and even being "anti-Israeli". איתמראשפר (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC or C4U ?

[edit]

I would strongly suggest filing this via the Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases process instead. This RfC has already reached 61K of text, which is a lot for a steward or Meta admin to sort through, and hence is unlikely to lead to any useful action. * Pppery * it has begun 18:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply seems very funny for a Russian Wikipedian. We have many discussions >600kb of text and several discussions >2MB of text, and there are admins who summarize them. MBH (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think WMF or the global community must intervene - whether that there is a situation severe enough to require this kind of massive GRfC document, or that some people forged a GRfC document this massive and gained 30+ supports. - Either way, this suggests a self-governing failure and needs intervention. --魔琴 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pppery for your response. The RFC is indeed long, but that is only because the case has many details for which we wanted to provide as much evidence as possible. Thank you also for suggesting to submit the RFC to the U4C. We have already forwarded it to the T&S team, which replied that they are beginning to examine it, but also suggested we get U4C involved as well. Similar to 魔琴's claim, we believe that the very fact that this RFC is so detailed and packed with evidence, and that it is receiving such widespread support from the community, indicates that intervention, or at least an investigation, is much needed. Sofiblum (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claims by User:נהג (Nahag)

[edit]

Your response raises questions. There is an affair that the previous bureaucrats declared. In which 43 editors were blocked who tried to take over the site as an organized group in violation of the rules. Are you surprised that it was supported by 30 editors? Don't you ask yourself how 30 editors, who were blocked six months ago and were supposedly supposed to abandon the site, ended up on this very page? נהג (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At this point, user נהג pasted a huge (~11KB) wikitable in Hebrew, which was copied from an official announcement by the hewiki bureaucrats. The table compares the results of 11 polls that were allegedly affected by "recruits" from the first wave of mass blocks, which included 43 users. The table shows that 5 out of these polls were to be re-opened (in actuality they weren't), and that the result of another 3 polls was reversed. The table is huge, hard to read for people who can't read Hebrew, and can hardly be regarded as an argument in this discussion (it's just raw data). This document is large enough already, so we put all the tables, evidence etc. on separate web pages, and link to them when needed. In concordance with that policy, I have removed the table from this page and provided a direct link to the original, should anyone wish to examine it. איתמראשפר (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
נהג Your argument is irrelevant since most of the RFC signatories are unblocked editors Sofiblum (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted here, for full disclosure, that the user who commented under the name נהג is the same user who commented three times earlier in this discussion under the name לבלוב Sofiblum (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation against signatories

[edit]

fyi, there are now calls to retaliate against the signers of this RfC. just the lovely things you often see when someone raises concerns in a respectful collaborative project (end sarcasm). TalyaNe (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions in another place about this RFC are canvassing. Louvre|Talk 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any off-wiki attempts to canvass? Ahri Boy (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not off-wiki attempts, but inter-wiki attempts. It was described here. Louvre|Talk 05:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Comments

[edit]

(Note: this comment refers to the hewiki article "Anti-Israeli Bias on English Wikipedia")

הי תוסיפו את
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%94%D7%98%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%AA
עוד "ערך" אופייני. בבקשה תרגמו להם לאנגלית. 2A02:14F:1ED:663E:7775:DA89:DDC:732C 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: this comment refers to the discussion about canceling User:sofiblum's mandatory mentorship. In the discussion, the new bureaucrats ask for evidence that sofiblum edits correctly (instead of evidence of harmful edits). Even though several editors provided the requested evidence, and that only one evidence of a minor NPOV edit was shown, her mandatory mentorship wasn't canceled)

עכשיו תסתכלו בבירורים הם מנסים להוכיח שאין לסופי אחות. אין בדל ראיה שהיא עשתה משהו לא תקין אבל לא אכפת להם. החסימה לא ירדה 2A02:14F:172:A18E:AFCD:24F6:E9D8:B1E0 16:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the Record Straight: Addressing Misleading Claims About Hebrew Wikipedia

[edit]

As a long-standing editor on Hebrew Wikipedia (hewiki) with almost 20 years of experience, I feel compelled to address the inaccuracies and misleading claims presented in this complaint.

  1. False Allegations of a "Nationalist Takeover" - The assertion that Hebrew Wikipedia has been "overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors" is demonstrably false. Garfield, the bureaucrat who led the blocks, is both secular and liberal, much like myself. In fact, he shares many of the same political views as the authors of this complaint. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the current bureaucrats are also secular, not religious or nationalist. In fact, the representation of religious or right-wing editors among admins, checkusers, and bureaucrats is disproportionately low compared to their representation in Israeli society.
  2. Misrepresentation of Blocking History - Approximately 75% of the blocks were directed at religious and right-wing editors, based on evidence suggesting they were part of an organized group attempting to manipulate discussions and votes for political purposes. While I cannot personally verify the evidence, I trust the bureaucrats acted on legitimate concerns. Shortly after, it was revealed that a left-leaning group, self-identified as "the liberal group," was engaging in similar tactics. Leaked WhatsApp messages from this group provided compelling evidence of organized canvassing, including instructions on gaining voting rights, coordinating political stances, and avoiding detection.
  3. Damages Caused by the "Liberal Group" - The "liberal group" caused significant harm to Hebrew Wikipedia. Some notable actions include:
    • The group initiated a vote to revoke the bureaucrat rights of Dovno, widely regarded as one of the most effective and respected bureaucrats, based on an unfounded claim of political bias. This action ultimately led to his retirement from the Wikipedia project.
    • The group attempted to install one of its leaders as a bureaucrat, thwarted only because the group’s activities were exposed.
    • During the checkuser elections, they actively campaigned against a candidate they perceived as a right-leaning secular individual, while simultaneously promoting their preferred candidate—a known left-wing editor predominantly focused on editing political articles.
    • Organized participation in discussions that disrupted consensus, often leading to decisions that strayed from Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
  4. איתמראשפר (Itamar's) Role and Continued Disruption - Itamar, one of the leaders of the group and the primary author of this complaint, dismissed the evidence of the group's activities as fake, even though a key group member admitted to the group's existence. Additionally, technical verification substantiated the credibility of the leaked messages.
    Following his block, Itamar's actions only intensified tensions. He continued participating in Hebrew Wikipedia anonymously, signing his contributions as "Itamar from the local coffee shop." In one instance, he wrote a threatening message to a checkuser, writing:
    "You will keep blocking, and we will keep writing. Yes, we, the army of anonymous editors, who, contrary to your delusions, have never been blocked but are closely following your crimes against the community and see everything. We will continue to haunt you, not just on talk pages but also in your dreams, your nightmares, and your petty-fascist hallucinations. You will not escape the truth, you will not receive any discount, nor will you find rest—just as befits a hybrid of a rhino and a dwarf bulldog."
    This behavior led to Itamar being formally declared a troll on Hebrew Wikipedia after checkuser verification confirmed his authorship of the message.
  5. Acknowledging Procedural Missteps - I agree with one point raised in the complaint: the process of conducting blocks—sudden, without prior discussion, and often coupled with user page restrictions, was flawed. Similarly, the prolonged closure of the "Parliament" and temporary rule changes were not ideal. I have voiced these concerns in hewiki discussions and opposed Garfield’s reelection partly for this reason. However, these procedural missteps do not invalidate the underlying justification for the blocks, which were essential to protect hewiki's integrity.

In conclusion, the claims presented in this complaint distort the truth and undermine the tremendous efforts made to safeguard hewiki from coordinated attempts to subvert its principles. While no process is perfect, the actions taken were among the most justified in hewiki's history, given the immense damage caused by these groups. I encourage Wikimedia to carefully evaluate the claims in this complain, considering that they come from individuals whose actions have had a significant negative impact on hewiki. Yuri (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not surprising that User:Yuri wrote the above comment, as he is one of the most aggressive editors in hewiki, who just recently wrote to User:Gilgamesh "I miss you... Where is the old Gilgamesh who'd say we should block and block and block and block some more... this could be such a healthy approach". (Gilgamesh is one of the old bureaucrats' affiliates, who was described as a bully by over 20 users in the local RFC about him, and got away with not even a warning). It could be that Yuri is also affiliated with some of the bureaucrats, as a glimpse at his block log reveals that during the term of the old bureaucrats, Garfield and Dovno either released or minimized blocks that were issued upon him by other admins (BTW most of his many blocks are for mistreating other users). In this local RFC recently posted about him by a fellow editor which he brutally attacked for signing this RFC about hewiki, the new bureaucrats dismissed the case with nothing but a warning "for both sides", so he might be affiliated with one of them, as well.
It is also not surprising that Yuri didn't provide any evidence for any of his claims in the above comment, but rather repeated the baseless stories and rumors that were spread by the old bureaucrats. Here are some of Yuri's claims above that either need hard evidence to even be considered valid for discussion, or are completely false:
  1. We don't know what Yuri's and Garfield's political stance is, and we didn't claim that we know. Actually, our claim about a religious-nationalist takeover doesn't mean that EVERYBODY is religious or nationalist, it just mean that a critical mass of such editors and admins exists. However, since Yuri voted against the inclusion of homophobic expressions in the article about a certain rabbi; said that he supports the notion that the Palestinian authority is a terrorist organization; and proudly added a "Zionist and Right-winged" badge to his user-page; so his claims about himself being "a liberal" are somewhat doubtful (maybe he is a NEOliberal, which is something completely different).
  2. Yuri's claim that the representation of religious and right-winged admins, checkusers and bureaucrats is "disproportionately low compared to their representation in Israeli society" is negated by an analysis of users' contributions], which shows that almost 30% of admins and 60% of checkusers never edit on Shabbat, which is a strong indication of being religious. The percentage of religious people in Israeli society is around 20-25, so the portion of religious users in hewiki is actually slightly higher than in the general population (An interesting fact is that even the two hewiki bots which have admin permissions don't edit on Shabbat). About the left-right division, our analysis shows that too many admins are unidentified politically, which prevents us from knowing the actual division between left and right in hewiki, but among those whose stance is generally known, there is indeed a substantial majority of right-leaning editors.
  3. His claim that "75% of the blocks were directed at religious and right-leaning users" contradicts the evidence: based on votes in polls and Shabbat activity we estimate that out of the 59 blocked users, 28 are religious and/or right-leaning - a bit less than half.
  4. Yuri explicitly states that he "cannot verify the evidence", but he still quotes the bureaucrats' claims as fact, saying that he trusts them. This raises the question why does he quote them without seeing any evidence, but the bigger question is why don't the bureaucrats themselves respond to this RFC and to the other RFCs which were published on these matters.
  5. Yuri's claims that the vote about revoking Dovno's permissions as bureaucrat was initiated by "the liberal group" and was based on the "claim of political bias" - this is simply not true. The initiator of the vote was User:Kulli Alma, who was never accused of being part of "the liberal group" and was never blocked in this affair (or any), and her claims against Dovno had nothing to do with politics - they were about his abuse of power and disregard of bullying by specific users.
  6. Yuri claims that User:Danny-w, who ran for bureaucrat but was blocked during the elections, was "one of the leaders of the liberal group" - but this is just another quote of the old bureaucrats' allegations, which were never supported by any evidence. Same are his claims about canvassing in the elections for bureaucrats or checkusers.
  7. His claim that "the liberal group" caused any "disruption in consensus" that often led to "decisions that strayed from Wikipedia's NPOV policy" is presented without a single example or shred of evidence - because it is completely false.
  8. His claims about me (Ithamar, User:איתמראשפר) being the leader of "the liberal group" is completely baseless, and presented with no evidence. Same is his claim that I'm the main author of this RFC (I did publish the first version under my username, because someone had to, but I could never write such a detailed and evidence-rich document all by myself. Thanks for the credit, though, I'm really flattered).
  9. When he claims that "a key group member admitted to the group's existence", he is probably referring to Danny-w's statement that he was added to a WhatsApp group as a technical assistant. This is just another misuse of Danny-w's statement, just like the other misuses of that statement, mentioned in section 2.3.8 subsection 2 of this RFC.
  10. Yuri's quote of the rude message I've sent to User:Barak A is a mere manipulation. Barak and I had a quarrel a while ago, because he erased several legit edits which I made anonymously after my preliminary block, and I lost my temper about it. Since then we have already talked it out, both apologized for our behavior, and ended the quarrel peacefully as friends. Barak wrote about our mutual apologies and our reconciliation, several times, one of which in response to Yuri, who replied! So there's no doubt Yuri knows about that unfortunate affair ending peacefully, but he still chose to use it to attack me, which is not entirely honest. More details about my questionably-legal declaration as troll can be found in an RFC I published on Meta, and in section 2.1.2 of this current RFC.
In conclusion, Yuri's message above is filled with baseless claims, for which he didn't manage to provide even a single piece of evidence. As I've shown here, at least some of these claims are completely bogus, and others are mere manipulations and distractions. איתמראשפר (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yuri, does any Israeli have to apologize for being kidnapped by Hamas?
Emily was kidnapped from her home, and lost two fingers. She was not a soldier, nor participated any party, but was in her home. For Hamas, it was enough for being "guilty".
I registered for writing articles. No WhatsApp, no troops, no parliament, no village pump, just writing articles.
Why do I have to be "accused" by a troll? Barak a wrote very clearly that it was a troll.
Why did not you notice me? The reply was because I was not in your discussions, nor near them.
Why did the He WP punish me for being chased by a troll? Why did it take Barak two months to check me?
What does a troll do? Here is an example from today. What do you prefer: An article about a film of Brigitte Bardot or this? Louvre|Talk 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yuri: "Leaked WhatsApp messages from this group provided compelling evidence of organized canvassing, [...] coordinating political stances, and avoiding detection".
There are screenshots of a He WP administrator, who terrified non-administrator users outside of the He WP space, including the last week.
Adopting the approach of the former bureaucrats, as well as the current bureaucrats, who did not reply my applications, the evidences are not revealed. Louvre|Talk 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itamar’s response consists of two parts: a series of ad hominem attacks aimed at undermining my character and a repetition of false or misleading claims. I will address both issues and provide evidence for every key point, as Itamar questioned my lack of references.
It is ironic that the statistics Itamar presents—despite being inflated or inaccurate—undermine his own claims of a "religious and nationalist takeover" or "selective enforcement." Additionally, his failure to categorically deny the existence of the WhatsApp group, which he is accused of managing, is telling. Instead, he deflects by claiming the bureaucrats didn’t present evidence, avoiding a direct denial.
  • My Political Stance and Liberal Philosophy - It is widely known on hewiki that both Garfield and I are secular. Garfield is a left-wing liberal, while I am a moderate right-wing liberal. Unlike Itamar, I believe "liberalism" is a broad philosophy, not limited to progressive ideology. (I myself am a classical liberal.) Itamar’s skepticism of my liberalism stems from his tendency to label anyone who doesn’t share his worldview as conservative, religious, or nationalist.
Regarding his claim that I voted against including "homophobic expressions" in an article about a certain rabbi, this is a distortion. I opposed the inclusion because I believe one vague statement made at an insignificant event does not meet encyclopedic standards. Including such details indiscriminately would turn articles into "unreadable garbage." I fully support LGBTQ rights, and this baseless claim misrepresents my stance.
Regarding my user page's "Zionist and Right-winged" badge, it has been there for over 15 years and predates the events he references. Itamar falsely claims I said "the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist organization." I never said this. The link he provided is for a vote concerning a template about Palestinian Legislative Council members' affiliations. Ironically, I joined Itamar in opposing that template for violating NPOV principles.
  • Alleged Bureaucratic Affiliations - The notion that I am closely allied with bureaucrats is laughable to anyone familiar with hewiki. I have long been a vocal critic of bureaucratic actions and politically incorrect. This led to multiple blocks, some initiated by Garfield himself. I strongly opposed Garfield’s reelection, and one of the new bureaucrats supported a permanent block against me less than a year ago. My stance is not driven by personal alliances but by concern over the threats posed by Itamar’s and similar groups to hewiki’s integrity.
Regarding the main issues:
  • Representation of Religious and Right-Wing Editors - The analysis Itamar provided categorizes editors’ affiliations arbitrarily, labeling anyone who opposes his group’s biased edits as "right-wing." I know of some users he labeled as right-wing who are certainly not. Yet even his flawed statistics undermine his claim:
    1. Bureaucrats: 100% secular.
    2. Admins: Less than 30% are religious, roughly proportional to their representation in Israeli society (depending on definitions). Approximately one-third are left-leaning—a disproportionate representation, considering polls suggest that left-wing parties (even including non-Zionist ones) would comprise about 20% of the next Israeli parliament.
So even based on his exaggerated figures, two-thirds of the administrators and checkusers are secular, and less than 50% are right-wing, with the remainder leaning left or center. These numbers completely contradict the claim of a "religious-nationalist takeover.”
  • The Blockings of the Right-Wing Group - The claim that 75% of blocks targeted right-leaning users has been widely accepted on hewiki and is supported by the voting patterns of those blocked, as presented by the bureaucrats. Itamar’s attempt to downplay this figure only weakens his argument. Even accepting his incorrect claim that only half of those blocked were right-wing, this still contradicts his allegations of selective enforcement.
  • Verifying Bureaucrat Statements - As I stated, I cannot personally verify the evidence presented by the bureaucrats against the right-wing group since it was never disclosed to me. However, I have strong reasons to believe such a group existed based on other credible sources I contacted after the blocks were implemented. That said, I do not believe the group was as extensive as claimed by the bureaucrats, and I agree that at least some of the blocks may have been unwarranted.
  • Existence of a Left-Wing WhatsApp Group and Danny-w’s Connection to It - Itamar avoids denying the group’s existence, instead criticizing evidence presentation. However, the group’s existence is confirmed by leaked screenshots and Danny’s admission. Danny posted the following message in his talk page:
"I was added as an experienced user with knowledge to guide new editors, and retrospectively, it turned out to be a group of liberal editors. This became apparent to me only after the fact. I did not initiate this; rather, I responded to a request to join the training as a knowledgeable participant and was assigned the role of group manager without my knowledge. In hindsight, I can understand how this might appear, but in reality, I was naively exploited."
Screenshots show Danny-w expressed hope that group members would gain voting rights, stating: "We (the left-wing editors) need to become a majority in Wikipedia."
So, contrary to Itamar’s statement, the fact that Danny was one of the managers of the group is supported by evidence (he admitted it).
  • Revoking Dovno's Permissions as Bureaucrat - The vote to revoke Dovno’s bureaucrat rights was a politically motivated action orchestrated by the left-wing WhatsApp group. Kuli Alma, who initiated the vote, claimed Dovno was biased against liberal editors. However, her statements reveal the political underpinnings of her actions. She accused Dovno of failing to address "evident factionalism" in votes against three editors "perceived as liberal" while focusing on a vote involving a "conservative editor."
She further criticized him for deleting a page that detailed the use of sock puppets by an editor affiliated with a right-wing organization. The organization denied any involvement in the editor's actions, and Kuli Alma failed to acknowledge that the deletion adhered to hewiki policy, which permits the creation of such pages only in cases involving significant misconduct or extensive damage—criteria that this case clearly did not meet.
Notably, the blocks she referred to—including those of Itamar and other left-wing editors—were carried out by Garfield, that as mention was a left-wing bureaucrat, not Dovno. Yet, Kuli Alma targeted Dovno, stating: "I view the bureaucrats as a coordinated body acting together" and accusing him of "setting the tone."
This decision reflects the group’s strategy to remove Dovno while avoiding Garfield, whom they likely saw as a potential ally. Leaked communications from the group, published on hewiki, provide further evidence of their intent. One member explicitly admitted:"Even if we succeed in removing one of the bureaucrats, there isn’t a single suitable candidate to replace them."
These actions and statements make it clear that the effort to revoke Dovno’s rights was not about neutrality or fairness but rather a calculated political maneuver to consolidate influence on hewiki and remove a bureaucrat they viewed as unsympathetic to their political agenda.
  • Canvassing Elections for Checkusers - Two users connected to the left-wing group—one directly verified and the other highly suspected based on circumstantial evidence—were caught engaging in canvassing during the Checkuser elections. This involved promoting a left-leaning editor and undermining a perceived right-wing candidate. The evidence against them is well-documented and includes leaked emails, public statements, and their own admissions.
One of the leaked emails published on hewiki reads: "Since Itamar is no longer around, I miss both of you in the community. I hardly see you anymore. What’s going on? There’s a vote for a CheckUser, in case you missed it, on the noticeboard."
This email was sent on August 4, the same day suspicious voting patterns emerged in the Checkuser election. Community members noted an unusual increase in participation, raising suspicions of coordinated canvassing.
Another editor stated publicly: "I want to point out here that I have received messages from this editor more than once about discussions and votes I was unaware of."
In response to these accusations, the editor herself admitted to reaching out to others but attempted to downplay her actions: "I reached out to an editor with whom I frequently discuss Wikipedia matters and analyze situations on various topics to hear his opinion. I didn’t express an opinion; I merely brought the existence of the vote to his attention and expected to hear his perspective."
The second implicated user made a similar admission: "I reached out to an editor I’ve been in contact with for a long time and brought the CheckUser vote to his attention. I pointed out that, in such a divisive period, it doesn’t make sense for all the CheckUsers to come from the same sector and gender."
She later claimed her actions were limited: "In my opinion, it’s about one person (she reached out); I don’t know about more." However, when the matter was revisited during discussions to lift her block, her recollection suddenly changed: "I most likely made a mistake in reaching out to people regarding the CheckUser vote."
These contradictory statements strongly suggest she reached out to multiple editors, contrary to her initial claim of contacting only one.
The above evidence highlights the deliberate attempts by members of the left-wing group to sway elections through canvassing. Itamar’s dismissal of these incidents as unfounded is not only inaccurate but also ignores the admissions and evidence that are publicly available on hewiki.
  • Disruption of Consensus by the Liberal Group - The left-wing group repeatedly disrupted consensus on key articles by pushing politically charged edits that violated Wikipedia’s neutrality policy (NPOV). This pattern of behavior is well-documented, and I will provide just two notable examples to illustrate the group’s approach:
    1. Benjamin Netanyahu’s Article - Itamar attempted to change:
      "On January 4, 2023, Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced his intention to advance a reform in the powers of the judicial system and reduce judicial activism."
      To
      "On January 4, 2023, Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced his intention to advance a broad reform that would subordinate the judicial system to the government and abolish the separation of powers in Israel."
      This falsely attributed extreme and false statements to Levin, representing the group’s opinion rather than a factual report of his January 4 statement. This change sparked a heated debate, with the group attempting to defend the edit despite it being unsupported by credible sources.
    2. "Cult of Personality" Article - The group tried listing Benjamin Netanyahu alongside notorious dictators such as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Kim Jong-un as examples of a "cult of personality." When challenged, Itamar defended the inclusion, stating: "I agree that the sources presented here are not particularly strong, but there is no need for a high-quality academic source to state what is evident to the naked eye." This statement exemplifies the group’s disregard for Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability and neutrality. Itamar’s justification—that subjective impressions should override academic rigor—reveals the group’s willingness to undermine consensus for ideological purposes.
These examples are not isolated incidents. Similar attempts were made in articles about Bezalel Smotrich and other right-wing figures, where biased statements were introduced to align with the group’s political agenda. These disruptions consumed significant community resources and hindered the collaborative editing process.
  • Itamar’s Role as Group Manager - Itamar initially claimed that leaked messages from the left-wing group’s WhatsApp chat were fake when they surfaced on an Israeli forum. However, this assertion has since been disproven, as the group’s existence is now confirmed, and the messages were validated through technical means that showed it was highly unlikely they were fabricated. In these messages, Itamar is clearly identified as one of the group’s managers. He was actively involved in coordinating actions, including canvassing, publishing numerous “invites” for group members to vote in contentious discussions about political articles, and even suggesting that group members avoid talking about the group outside its confines.
While Itamar has avoided directly denying his role as one of the group’s managers, the screenshots tell a different story. He continues to claim that all of this is baseless. If he explicitly requests it, the screenshots can, of course, be shared here to substantiate these claims.
  • Rude Message by Itamar to the CheckUser Barak - Itamar indeed has apologized privately for his message to Barak, but this does not negate its implications. As I stated on hewiki: "I have no doubt that Itamar wrote this message in a moment of anger and that his apology is sincere. I also have no doubt that what he wrote about the 'army of editors who were never blocked' and about 'the reckoning that will come one day' is entirely true and was said with full intent."
In conclusion, the evidence against the left-wing group is overwhelming. Their actions—including canvassing, disrupting consensus, and promoting biased edits—have repeatedly undermined Wikipedia’s neutrality and integrity. While Itamar’s response is filled with deflections and character attacks, the facts speak for themselves.
Moreover, even if we were to take Itamar’s numbers at face value—which are clearly inflated to suit his narrative—they directly contradict his claims of "selective enforcement" and the "overtaking by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors."
That said, I do not agree with the way the blocking process was carried out. The lack of transparency and the absence of an opportunity for the affected parties to respond before the blocks were implemented were significant procedural missteps. These shortcomings undermined the perception of fairness, even though the actions taken were undoubtedly justified to protect the integrity of the Hebrew Wikipedia project.
It is essential to separate procedural concerns from the substantive justification for the blocks. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that these actions were necessary to prevent further damage to the project. Do not assume that the number of signatures on this complaint reflects its validity. As I’ve pointed out, while it is known that over 60 people were part of the left-wing group, only a few members were blocked due to the challenges of linking WhatsApp users to specific Wikipedia accounts. However, there is strong circumstantial evidence connecting many of the complaint’s signatories—beyond those already blocked—to this group. Yuri (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itamar, I’m not sure what the basis is for the analysis you linked, but some of its conclusions are inherently inaccurate. The analysis significantly overestimates the representation of left-wing and liberal editors among hewiki admins. In reality, the dominance of right-wing and conservative admins in hewiki is a far greater concern than what may be inferred from this analysis.
Here are a few examples of inaccurate assessments in the analysis:
  • Lostam is, for some very strange reason, described as left-leaning. This is grossly wrong. Not only is Lostam not a liberal-leaning editor in any form, he is in fact bluntly biased towards the political right. As the sole manager of hewiki's notability and deletion discussions, he clearly applies a double standard when it comes to articles about liberal figures, consistently supporting the wipeout of every single one of them. He is nowhere near as eager to delete articles about religious or conservative figures, to say the least. In fact, in a series of recent votes he all but admitted his unequivocal anti-LGBTQ bias. In one particularly disturbing example, Lostam basically made it clear that the sexual orientation of the article's subject played a role in his decision to nominate the article for deletion. He even rudely suggested that articles about LGBTQ individuals are inherently political or activist in nature, an accusation he has never leveled against right-wing editors who regularly create articles about conservative figures of questionable notability.
    • An external article available here (with a Google-translated version here) delves into hewiki's troubling pattern of routinely targeting and rejecting encyclopedic articles about LGBTQ individuals or related topics. The article also highlights the stark double standard exhibited by Lostam and other hewiki editors with power when it comes to their tolerance (not to say embracement) of completely negligible articles about Rabbis, religion, ultranationalists and right-wing activists; those articles are very rarely up for deletion. It is both surprising and unfortunate that this RfC mentions very little, if anything, with regards to this troubling issue, which is of course a direct consequence of hewiki's decade-long takeover by anti-LGBTQ, right-wing nationalists. To sum up, Lostam's characterization as a left-leaning editor in the linked analysis was almost certainly made by mistake.
  • אלעדב. is described as left-leaning. However, nothing in his contributions or voting record suggests he is indeed so. I do not recall him ever commenting anything that could imply his political leanings, since he does not tend to participate in politically-charged discussions or votes.
  • ארז האורז is described as right-leaning, but virtually nothing in his contributions or voting record suggests he is indeed so. This appears to be the sole instance of a mistaken right-wing characterization in the analysis.
  • דזרט is described as left-leaning. However, there is no indication he is indeed so. In fact, his voting record may actually suggest otherwise, since he seems very persistent and passionate in his votes to delete LGBTQ-related articles, while generally being absent from most other deletion votes.
  • Ili Kaufmann, Politheory1983, היידן, כובש המלפפונים and ערן are all similarly described as left-leaning, but nothing in their contributions or voting record suggests they are indeed so.
In a nutshell, the analysis linked by Itamar above may make one wrongly believe that nearly a third of hewiki admins are liberals. This is far from accurate, as their actual representation is significantly lower. 5.29.194.129 19:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yuri, it took less than an hour from the notice of Israel that the Gazan inhabitants would not return to the north, until the announcement that Arbel Yehud was alive and would be freed on the next Saturday (and perhaps earlier).
The He WP bureaucrats and a part of the administrators were much less responsive, although the servers as well as the WMF are outside of Israel.
Screenshots might be put, and would be linked if possible. Louvre|Talk 11:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
בורה בורה, is she proud? Can she judge? Louvre|Talk 10:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
בורה בורה, what happened here? What were "זחטיכלמנסעפצקרשת"? Why was a block requested?
Please see וק:אל, and in English: WP:Point.
Why did Funcs write: "We are sure that לבלוב (לבלוב is נהג) would pay attention the notes which they received as well as the many praises, and wish them a stroke of luck in every way they choose to contribute to the project"? Louvre|Talk 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see it and it. It seemed that the inability of Funcs was reflected at her answer: "I think that even if additional five persons would write that it was the time to get the decision, it would not drive us to get it faster".
The reply of ליש was simple: "Why would not you release her until finishing your test? I hope that the bureaucrats would find a horizon to end this issue".
Please see the detailed and polite answer of an En WP admin, which was given in 20 minutes. Louvre|Talk 11:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuri, do you have any response to any of the supporting claims (and sometimes even wholly new claims) that were raised in the #Support section, or are you satisfied with simply marking Itamar as the one being wrong and ignoring the rest? TalyaNe (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will not let Yuri drag me into this charade, which attempts to put all the focus on me personally, and distract you from the massive body of evidence which was presented here and supported by 35 hewiki users, some of which have added valuable examples and information that we missed in the original document. I believe that WMF people will make the effort to understand the case and reach a conclusion - it's obviously a lot of hard work already, and I wouldn't like to make it harder with another round of answers to every single baseless claim by Yuri. However, I do feel obliged to respond, shortly, to a few of the more personal allegations:
  1. Yuri accuses me of avoiding to "directly deny" my role as "one of the group's managers". Please note that I haven't directly denied several other things, including my centric role in spreading anthrax, my hobby of starting wildfires in California, and, of course, my true identity as the antichrist. I'm sorry, but I won't start denying any baseless accusation which is thrown at my direction - especially if I was punished severely before I was even told what my crime is, and without having the chance to defend myself or to see whatever evidence my prosecutors think that they have against me. If and when I will receive an official explanation to my sudden permanent block, from an authorized hewiki personnel and not some random user, as I have asked the bureaucrats to do several times in personal e-mails and on talk pages - then I will gladly discuss it with them, and if the need of directly denying anything will rise, I won't have any problem to do it.
  2. Yuri's two examples of "disruption of consensus" must be addressed, as without some familiarity with the events they might seem legit.
    1. Levin's judicial "reform" was indeed described as subordinating the judicial system to the government and abolishing the separation of powers - by virtually hundreds of law professors, political science experts and judges (including top international figures like en:Alan Dershowitz). This description is supported by an article which was published by Cambridge University Press (in English), and in this summary paper by nearly 100 law professors from all of Israel's universities. What's more, at a certain point Levin himself said in a TV statement that his original "reform" would allow a government to control the supreme court and thus abolish the separation of powers. Since when did describing the consensus opinion of experts become "a political bias"? Since when does quoting hundreds of law experts, as well as the initiator of the reform himself, become "unsupported by credible sources"??
    2. Netanyahu's reign, over Israel and over his party "Likud", has indeed been described as a personality cult many times by many sources - for example here and here (in English), and in countless Hebrew sources over the years. Netanyahu was named "God's Friend" (even popular songs have been written about this, and the term "Bibism" was coined to describe "the political view which believes in supporting the Israeli PM's every decision, regardless of whether it fits a certain agenda or political direction". Hewiki even has an article about Bibists, who is the term which describes Netanyahu's followers, and refers to academic and other sources who describe "Bibism" as a form of personality-cult. So once again, Yuri describes legitimate content as "political bias" only because HE doesn't like it.
  3. Lastly, I have to address the table I linked in my original comment to Yuri, with the religious and political tendencies of hewiki admins. It clearly shows that only a few admins officially disclose their religious and/or political stance, and indeed, as I tried to stress in my comment and in the table itself, the division between religious/secular and left/right is only an assessment, made by myself with the help of some of the writers of this RFC. Yuri claims that this assessment is biased to the right, while an anonymous commentator above claims that it is biased to the left. In hindsight, I guess that this table might include too much guess-work to be considered as hard evidence for a majority of either political side amongst hewiki admins. Anyways, this RFC never claimed that such a majority exists, and even if there is a majority to either side it doesn't matter, as some admins are always more influential and active than others, and there's no empiric way to determine the influence of admins over the atmosphere and content of any wiki project.
What's important is that the selective enforcement by political stance, the improper procedures, the anti-LGBTQ+ atmosphere and the rest of the problems described in the RFC and comments - are real. What's important is that it seems like the community needs some help from WMF in order to heal and get back on its tracks. איתמראשפר (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to refute a claim that keeps coming up in the responses here as if Itamar is the main author of this complaint. The complaint was written by a group of editors, Itamar being one of them, I am one of those editors too. In the current atmosphere in hewiki some editors who were involved are afraid to reveal their names.Sofiblum (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Severe_Problems_in_hewiki&oldid=28251632"