Talk:Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki

User:Neriah's comments

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)

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)

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)

I would note that any potential problems in Arabic Wikipedia do not in any way excuse or lessen highlighted issues of Hebrew Wikipedia. Genocide denial in Azerbaijani Wikipedia was not in any way excused by the fact that Armenian Wikipedia was biased in favour of Armenians. Never mind the fact that at least some of highlighted issues, especially about wiki’s disgraceful handling of LGBT issues, are entirely unrelated to the Israel/Palestine issues. stjn^[ru] 21:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

About User:Danny-w removing his signature

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

About User:איתמראשפר (IthamarEshpar)

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)

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).

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

An anonymous editor's response following the support by Anderssøn79

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

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)

About trying local solutions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

The case of User:לובר (Louvre)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Xaosflux: Meta:Civility: "Highly uncivil or insulting comments may be removed, provided that it is noted on the edit summary and on the page." _Louvre|Talk 16:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Response to User:HanochP

@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)

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)

RFC or C4U ?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Claims by User:נהג (Nahag)

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)

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)

נהג Your argument is irrelevant since most of the RFC signatories are unblocked editors Sofiblum (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Retaliation against signatories

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)

Discussions in another place about this RFC are canvassing. _Louvre|Talk 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there any off-wiki attempts to canvass? Ahri Boy (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Not off-wiki attempts, but inter-wiki attempts. It was described here. _Louvre|Talk 05:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous Comments

(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)

(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)

Setting the Record Straight: Addressing Misleading Claims About Hebrew Wikipedia

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Anderssøn79 comment on the Feb. 19 update

Itamar,
First, I want to express my condolences for the heartbreaking news from Israel this morning about the killing of children in the never-ending war in Gaza. It’s a devastating reminder of the cycle of violence that seems impossible to break. That’s also what made me think about coming back here to see how things have developed.
As for the main issue—like I’ve said before, this is about much more than any specific editor or admin. The real problem with Hebrew Wikipedia runs far deeper. It has become a breeding ground for some of the worst aspects of Israeli society—racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, the promotion of hateful ideologies, and the elevation of religion in ways that directly contradict science, morality, justice, and any real commitment to truth. Instead of being a space for open knowledge, it has turned into a platform that reflects the narrow, exclusionary, and often extreme viewpoints of a very specific group.
Wikimedia is meant to be a place where all speakers of a language can take part. But Hebrew Wikipedia is a glaring exception—a space where non-Israelis, women, and anyone who doesn’t align with a rigid, nationalistic worldview are systematically pushed aside. Those who don’t fit the mold are either forced out quickly or worn down over time through relentless and well-organized harassment based on ethnicity, gender, and ideology. It’s not just a Wikipedia problem—it’s a microcosm of the broader Hebrew-speaking community and the deep-seated issues within Israeli society itself.
Given this reality, I completely understand the reluctance to intervene. When an entire platform is so fundamentally broken, trying to reform it from within is futile. The only real solution would be to shut down the Hebrew Wikipedia entirely. But that, of course, contradicts the principles of the Wikimedia movement, creating an inescapable paradox: there’s no way to solve the problem of Israeli editors in a way that aligns with Wikimedia’s own global standards.
At the end of the day, the question isn’t just about Wikipedia. It’s about the larger forces shaping Israeli discourse—the erosion of pluralism, the entrenchment of intolerance, and the ways in which knowledge itself is being weaponized. That’s what makes this such a difficult, if not impossible, problem to solve. Anderssøn79 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)