Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Systemic failure in enforcing the code of conduct in Hebrew Wikipedia

Reply to User:Yuri

I moved the reply to this page, case page is not meant to be a place for discussion among users. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Yuri is not a party in this case, but only mentioned as one of several examples of aggressive editors, I'm not sure if this is the right place for his comment and my reply. If it's not, please move them to the proper section. I feel that his claims should be addressed, so here's my response:

1. Claims of Organized Attempts to Influence Wikipedia
   • Yuri keeps claiming that he has "concrete evidence" for this, but he has never shown these evidence to anyone, especially not to the ones who were convicted by them and blocked permanently without any warning. He keeps mentioning screenshots of some private WhatsApp communication - but even if he does have such screenshots, and even if they are genuine and not fake, it's not clear whether using "leaked" private communication is even legal, or is within the mandate of Wikipedia system admins and bureaucrats. The habit of using private communication as evidence is a slippery slope, and has already led to at least two cases in which the new bureaucrats demanded that users will send them screenshots of their own private WhatsApp and e-mail conversations. This invasion of privacy goes against Wikimedia core values.
   • Furthermore, Yuri fails to mention some other screenshots, from right-winged WhatsApp groups, which were uploaded to some forums and sent to numerous editors - with no consequence, sanction or investigation. In one of those photos, a bureaucrat is quoted as promising to assist those who were blocked from the right-winged group, to get back to editing under new user names (we did recognise at least one editor who was blocked after being accused of participating in a "right-leaning bias group" and returned to editing three months later, under a new username). I also received these images, and if needed I can send them to you (Again, I'm not qualified to determine if they're genuine, and I'm not sure if it's legal to use screenshots from private conversations).
   • Besides, the question whether "bias groups" exist, and how to deal with them, is not the subject of this case - Yuri simply raises it to divert the conversation and spread doubts about the integrity of the complaining parties. Even if some bias groups to the left or right did exist, it doesn't justify the bullying, the mass blocks with no warning, the selective enforcement and the content biasing that are the subject of this case. If Yuri wishes to open a separate U4C case, about his theory of "Organized Influence Attempts", he may do so, of course.
2. Voting Rights Criteria and Legitimacy - the fact is that hewiki community created a set of criteria for voting rights, 17 years ago. Community decisions should only be changed by another community vote, therefore the unilateral changes by the bureaucrats weren't legal. Indeed, that action was subject to much criticism by veteran editors (those who weren't blocked), as we've shown in the RfC. This questions the legitimacy of any further polls, including the elections of new bureaucrats and the poll for new voting rights criteria, because only those spared by the bureaucrats could participate in them. Prior to the mass blocks, there was an ongoing conversation in hewiki about minimizing the use of polls and creating new criteria for voting rights - I myself was an active participant in those discussions, as I think writing an encyclopedia by majority vote is inherently wrong. The proper way to make the necessary change in voting rights criteria was to continue with those discussions and create a new policy together - not an after-the-fact approval of the unilateral steps made by those who can freely block any opposition (and kept threatening that they'll do it).
3. Critical Assessment of the Bureaucrats' Actions - Of course Yuri is entitled to his own opinion about the Bureaucrats actions, just like every other Hebrew Wikipedian, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this case.
4. "Misleading" Number of RfC Signatories - If Yuri wishes to present the "circumstantial evidence" he claims he has, and explain why he thinks that they link so many of the signatories, "directly or indirectly", to the alleged "disruptive group" - he's welcomed to do it, instead of spreading hearsay, conspiracy theories, insinuations and bold accusations. I have no idea who most of the mass-blocked editors are, and I have had no interaction or acquaintance with most of the signatories on the RfC (I don't even recognise the usernames of many of them). On the other hand, I know for a fact that several users were afraid to sign the RfC because they fear sanctions and false accusations; I know of at least one blocked editor who signed the RfC and then erased his signature, after being attacked on his talk page by several editors - including Yuri; In the RfC we've included a document quoting several veteran editors, one of them an ex-bureaucrat, who raised serious claims about the situation in hewiki, very similar to what we described, but preferred to not sign the RfC because they are reluctant to ask for external intervention in hewiki affairs. Given the fact that Sofiblum is currently being attacked for publishing this very U4C case, called "a traitor" and compared to Jews who handed other Jews over to the Spanish Inquisition(!) - it seems that the reluctancy of editors to sign or join the RfC is somewhat justified, or at least understandable. In fact, if the number of signatories is misleading, it's probably because it's smaller than the real number of supporters to the RfC.

So most of Yuri's comment is irrelevant, theoretical and a rhetorical diversion from the main subject, but I do join his wish that the committee will examine all the evidence before making a final decision. איתמראשפר (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Replies to User:ארז האורז

Moved from the party section, case page is not meant to be a place for discussion among users. --Civvì (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to thank you and Funcs for the terrific job you both are doing in your often thankless role as hewiki's bureaucrats during these difficult times. I am confident that the silent, yet overwhelming majority of hewiki's editors highly appreciate your impressive collaboration in addressing all contentious disputes thoroughly and impartially. It can safely be attested that hewiki is heading in the right direction under your leadership. The outgoing bureaucrats (Garfield and Bikoret) also made tremendous efforts in healing the hewiki community and safeguarding the encyclopedia against countless organized off-wiki bias threats during Israel's most polarized times, and I believe they handled this unprecedented crisis with great success as well. I kindly ask the Committee to consider the full picture, while also taking into account the near-unanimous support that Erez and Funcs have for their actions among hewiki's active editors (the vast majority of whom are unlikely to come across this page, let alone comment here). Best regards, Guycn2 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Guycn2, you changed my indentation. The result seemed that I replied to you, but it was wrong. You also deleted the spaces between my paragraphs, which should not be done. It decreased your comment.

An additional factor which decreased your comment was your reaction to the editings of AntiCompositeNumber, a steward who applied the WMF policy.

An additional comment which decreased the He WP as a community was the comment of אייל. He was not warned and his comment was not removed, although he wrote it in the village pump. TalyaNe wrote about it in the RFC, and she was always right.

For my best knowledge, the U4C sees the He WP as a community. Your reply to Erez and Funcs affirms the essence of the He WP as a community. _Louvre|Talk 06:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Louvre's reply to User: ארז האורז

Hello Erez, You wrote that you and your partner (Funcs) were friends for years, so you were a group. You were two bureaucrats who acted like one.

You also wrote about Ithamar, Sofi, left-wing, right-wing and bias. What exactly was "biased" in my editings in the He WP? I applied you here, in Meta, and asked you why He WP admins wrote that I was a "troll". You promised to check the issue, but ghosted.

Afterwards, Dorian applied you here, and asked you why a troll biased articles which Dorian wrote. You ghosted again.

You mentioned Bikoret. Bikoret wrote that users could register WP with new names and edit from scratch. Ithamar also wrote it here ("we know at least one editor who returned").

Ithamar also opposed the election of Barak as a checkuser. Barak deeds with me totally approved the objection of Ithamar. Barak blocked me only because I thanked him. I did not "go into Barak dreams", but only thanked him. Does it justify such a block? Where is the written policy of Bikoret and of You: "Our main goal is to write a quality encyclopedia" - exactly as I did.

Here is an additional group behavior of Barak. Barak wrote on the He WP village pump that the He WP checkusers were learning the email of the WMF and would update the He WP when applicable. The checkusers do not have to update anyone. The checkusers are not the managers and are not the bureaucrats of the He WP. They are checkusers, and the WMF could reach every community if they wished.

I hope Erez that you do not think that I am Ronen Bar or Nadav Arganan.

The U4C requested links and diffs. Unfortunately, you made nothing of it. Supplying "evidences privately" continuous your group behavior. What exactly do you want from Ithamar and Sofi, when you do the same? We call it McCarthyism.

There are two basic rules in Wikipedia: IAR and DNFTT. Concerning me, you and Barak violated both of them. _Louvre|Talk 23:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sofiblum's reply to User: ארז האורז

Most of Erez’s claims are highly inaccurate and no wonder he did not add any diffs to prove them. I will address the claims he made about me: He says that in the discussion about me he has shown “numerous examples” of problematic edits, and that no user in this discussion has “responded substantially” to these examples. In actuality, after User: אסף השני submitted a request to remove my mentorship and block, the bureaucrat Funcs presented the somewhat strange demand to “show evidence that sofi’s edits are good”. A few editors complied, and showed that only 3% of my last 500 edits were reverted, some of them without a justified reason. Many other editors who participated in the discussion supported the removal of my block, and claimed that I am being discriminated against. Almost a month later, after what Erez describes as a “thorough research and review of Sofi's edits” the bureaucrats managed to present only 10 examples of supposedly bad edits (out of my +4,400 main space edits). In response, User:אמאשל, along with User: אסף השני and myself, addressed ’’’all’’’ of these examples, and showed that two of them weren’t even edited by me! (I only added a source), and most of the others were reasonable edits. Nothing in those edits shows that I require mandatory mentorship or a complete block from Wikipedia. As we’ve shown in this case as well as in the RFC, several right leaning editors perform “problematic” edits regularly, without receiving any sanctions. Sofiblum (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

איתמראשפר (IthamarEshpar)'s reply to Erez Ha'Orez (user:ארז האורז)

Erez made some bold claims about me personally, so I must respond. He claims that I led a group “whose first and foremost goal was to bias Wikipedia”; that I “circumvented my block”; that I “used the account of another known editor and edited in her name”; and that I “harassed and threatened another editor”. All these claims are either false, inaccurate or are not supported by any evidence.

• “He led a group of liberal editors whose goal was to bias Wikipedia” - this came with no evidence for the existence of a group with such goals, or for me being the leader of that supposed group - Erez is simply echoing the baseless accusations thrown at me by the previous bureaucrats, presents them as facts as some kind of a rhetorical technique, which causes others to repeat them as well. I wasn't part of any “bias group”, so obviously I couldn't ‘’’lead’’’ any bias group. As I have stated in several hewiki discussions, I do lecture occasionally about Wikipedia, online or in person,for all kinds of crowds - sometimes at the request of Wikimedia Israel and sometimes at the request of private groups of friends who are interested - but if anyone regards these lectures as “leading a bias group”, then they should really set their terminology straight. I am a professional lecturer (usually about music and technology) and I love to use my skills to promote Wikipedia editing! A few weeks after being suddenly blocked without anyone telling me what I was blocked for, I started to realize that I was accused of participating in a “bias group”, and guessed that maybe it is related to my lectures - but no one ever confirmed that to me. A few months later I found out that I've been “promoted” from a mere participant to the leader of the group! Wow. Has anyone officially told me what I was accused of? No. Has anyone seen the evidence for whatever it is? I don't know, I sure haven't. Did I ever get a chance to defend myself? No. They just keep throwing mud at my face, repeating their obscure conspiracy theories over and over. THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
• “He circumvented his block” - it’s true that after being blocked I participated out-of-account in several discussions and criticized the mass blocks, but there’s no rule forbidding blocked users from participating in discussions, especially when there’s no other outlet to present their case (mass-blocked users were blocked even from their own talk pages). My participation in these discussions was indeed out-of-account, but except for one case it wasn’t anonymous, as I always ended my comments with a full disclosure that I wrote them. I didn't make any biased or false edits in the main namespace during that time, because I ‘’’never’’’ added biased or false content, even before my block (contrary to Erez’s claims, which came with no evidence).
• “He used the account of another known editor and edited in her name” - this was a personal favour to user:אמא של (Imma Shell), in response to her request. I'm tagging her here hoping she can comment soon and present her side of the story in full. Contrary to what Erez says, I never edited any content from her account, nor did I express my opinion in any discussion. Erez is clearly aware of that, as some users checked and wrote that no edits to main namespace content were made during that period, in a discussion where his fellow bureaucrat took part - but he chose to throw that misleading accusation at me.
• About the disturbing message to another user, quoted by Erez - it's true that in that specific event I snapped and wrote an anonymous obscene message to that user, and I do regret for losing control like that. In my defence, this came after that user erased some of my comments on talk pages and somewhat teased me in the edit summaries, which made me lose my cool. Most importantly, that user and I have long ago settled this between ourselves, after ‘’’mutual’’’ apologies. That user stated that he did receive and accept my apology here and here, and stressed that the apologies were mutual (here) and that he apologised to me as well (here). Erez participated in the discussions which were linked here, so he is obviously aware that we apologised to each other and made peace, so it’s not clear why he even brought up that event. I'm tagging the user involved, user:barak a, and I hope he'll be willing to join this conversation soon and testify that I'm telling the truth about this ordeal.

I don’t know why Erez is so resentful of me, I can only guess it’s something personal. I can present evidence that a while back, before Erez became a bureaucrat, he emailed several users in an attempt to prevent me from participating in a social Wikimedia Israel event. Truthfully, it seems like some kind of a personal vendetta, whose origins I can’t grasp.

Except for the fallacies and half truths Erez wrote about me, there are other inaccuracies in his comments. For example, he said about the voting criteria poll that “the emergency rules of the previous bureaucrats did not apply to that vote, contrary to what is claimed in the complaint”. This is simply untrue, as can be seen from the version of the Parliament’s “rules of voting” chapter on the day that the poll opened: it clearly says that in order to vote, a user should have been active in Wikipedia for 365 days - this is indeed the “emergency criterion” introduced by the old bureaucrats (the original rule, decided by the Parliament in 2007, was activity of 30 days). Another odd claim by Erez is that since the mass blocks “the number of controversial votes and political discussions significantly decreased”. This is a really strange argument, because it’s only natural that after one side of the debate is silenced, either by blocks or by continuous threats that “more blocks are coming”, there will be less discussions and votes. Thank you, איתמראשפר (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Erez chased Ithamar, because the interaction between Erez and Ithamar was like the interaction between Netanyahu and Argaman. Erez emails against the participation of Ithamar in the Wikimedia Israel social event showed that Erez was a part of a group. These emails were worse than any WhatsApp message, if there were such messages. I believe Ithamar about the emails, and do not believe about the WhatsApp. The emails were worse, because they dealt with a real event and with a real person (Ithamar). A boycott is made by a child, not by a He WP bureaucrat. _Louvre|Talk 19:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

What Ithamar wrote above is true: he never used my account to edit content or to write his opinions. Erez is referring to a period of about three weeks when I was out of the country with an E-SIM that was blocked from editing Wikipedia, while the discussion about my proposal for new voting rights criteria was at its peak. When I found out that my E-SIM was blocked and that I can’t participate in the discussion which I initiated and led, I got stressed that my proposal will evaporate, and my solution was to send my replies to Ithamar by email, and ask him to paste them from my account. In hindsight it wasn’t the best solution, but I was under pressure and that was what I came up with, and I trusted Ithamar to not abuse my account. Our checkusers checked and confirmed that no edits to main space were done at that time from my account, which means that my trust in Ithamar was justified, and that Erez’s accusations that Ithamar edited in my name as a means to circumvent his block are false. This was a temporary measure which was my own initiative, and Ithamar only pasted texts that I wrote, and only in the discussion about my poll. I later changed my password and this arrangement was over. Still, I was blocked for this action - a permanent block which was canceled a month later by Funcs (who was later elected as bureaucrat). A discussion about that affair, including the statement that no content edits were done in my name at that perdiod, can be found in this discussion on my talk page.

Additionally, I can confirm that I am one of the editors who received the email Erez sent, about Itamar, in an attempt to prevent him from participating in a social Wikimedia Israel event.

אמא של (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

אמא של's reply to User: ארז האורז

I would like to address some of the points raised by Erez:

• Erez brags that he and his fellow bureaucrat “managed to pass orderly criteria for voting rights”, but the truth is that the poll about new voting rights criteria was my own initiative in July 2024, which I then refined in collaboration with User:Neriah. The previous bureaucrats refused to start the poll, but after the new bureaucrats were elected both me and Neriah fine-tuned it, with some advice from bureaucrat Funcs, until it was started in February 2025. Erez didn’t take part in initiating, writing or editing that poll, and didn’t even participate in the long discussions which refined it. This can be easily verified by searching for his Hebrew user name ארז האורז in any of the discussion pages about the poll (here, here and here) and finding zero results.
• Another inaccurate claim by Erez is that “the group of propagandists” have “paralyzed discussions for selecting new admins in the last year and a half”. I’m not sure why he decided to talk about “the last year and a half”, because the archives of our Requests for Adminship page show at least 10 votes for admins during that period. It is true that during the past few months there were less votes for admins, but this is because the old bureaucrats refused to open any community votes for a long while, as can be demonstrated in this discussion about the renewal of an admin’s permissions. As a side note, I must mention that several adminship candidates were strangely rejected by the bureaucrats, even though receiving massive support from the community - some of them are perceived as “liberals” and one of them criticized the mass blocks.
• Erez claims that we describe him as “domineering and misogynistic” - I would very much like to see where exactly he found such descriptions of him in the RFC or in this case.

Thank you אמא של (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Replies to User:יאיר דב

Yair Dov raises many claims in his response without presenting evidence or links for any of them. This is not surprising, as these claims are easily refutable:

He claims that I (sofiblum) represent a group of blocked editors. In reality, 41 editors signed the RFC submitted to Meta, only about a third of whom are blocked, making this claim inaccurate to say the least. He claims this group was blocked due to organizing WhatsApp groups intended to conduct 'recruitment' to manipulate discussions and votes on Wikipedia talk and voting pages, but he presents no evidence for this claim and it can be assumed that he has not seen any such evidence and is simply basing his claims on hearsay. This is exactly one of our claims in this case request - that no evidence was presented. We also wonder whether outside Wikipedia connections are even something Wikipedia can or should supervise.

He claims that the case request ignores many editors who make political edits on a daily basis without interference. In doing so, he reinforces the claim raised in this case request that there is inconsistency in sanctions for political edits. While liberal editors receive severe sanctions, many conservative editors, one of the most prominent being Yair Dov himself, continue to make political edits all the time without interference.

He claims that we are lying when we write that he received comments about writing political articles. Well - we included two links to such comments in this case request (here and here). As we wrote he was only blocked once for 3 hours and in practice continues to edit political articles all the time.

When Yair Dov claims that he edits on a variety of topics such as geography, history, Bible, Jewish law, and more, he does not mention that his edits on these topics are also biased toward the conservative side. One example for archeology edits is the article he wrote about the lead tablet from Mount Ebal which was received with great skepticism in the scientific community. When he complains that User:Bakbik writes "controversial" edits, he is referring to the addition of reliable and documented information, for instance on settler violence and the Nakba. Sofiblum (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Reply to user:יעקב (Yaakov)

Kohelet Policy Forum is a right wing conservative lobbying organisation, which was massively involved in the design and promotion of the Israeli Judicial overhaul, and used to officially employ 2-3 payed editors in hewiki. However, on July 2023, after a checkuser examination revealed that someone operated 5 sock puppets on the Forum's hewiki article, the checkusers received a message from someone in Kohelet Forum, stating that the puppet operator was an employee of the Forum, and that "many users edit hewiki through the Forum's offices". Several users asked to clarify which editors edit from the lobbying organisation's offices, but the checkusers refused, hid the entire discussion, and later wrote that the check operation revealed "additional accounts with normal activity... which doesn't justify the exposure of their user names". Soon after, the discussion about that sock puppet affair was archived, and the WP namespace page about it was deleted, in spite of many users opposing the deletion and pointing out that sock puppet affairs usually get WP pages.

This is indeed an interesting and disturbing affair, but how is it related to Yaakov?

Well, considering the overwhelming evidence of Kohelet's organised attempt to bias hewiki with "many users who edit from it's offices", along with Yaakov's constant promotion of nationalist agenda in articles about political figures and events, and along with his absolute certainty that "an organised bias group" exists, I could easily imagine that Yaakov is a part of Kohelet's bias endeavour, and throw some serious accusations at him with the same self-confident rhetoric that he uses against me. However, I don't do that - because I don't have evidence. I expect Yaakov to do the same, and refrain from presenting his wild assumptions as facts. איתמראשפר (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A new text in the other Feedback

Hello Civvì, today Guycn2 put a new text in the Other feedback. The new text was different in every paragraph than the old text which was here. I verified it with Ctrl+F and by reading the paragraphs themselves.

I wish you would consider this act, which represented the He WP community, as an U4C member.

Therefore, I removed the old text in this talk page, to avoid confusion by the different texts and by the double exposure to the U4C members. Thank you, _Louvre|Talk 12:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It is crystal clear that I am the sole author of those two distinct comments, which are not identical to one another. I'm therefore not entirely sure what you mean by "double exposure". It would be preferable if the structure of the complaint page and its associated talk page be edited exclusively by committee members. Thank you. Guycn2 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:לובר of course users are free to add in the feedback sections what they think might be useful for the case independently on what they previously wrote as a reply in a different place. Moderation of U4C pages is done by U4C members (unless there is vandalism which can obviously be reverted by anyone), thank you. --Civvì (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Civvì, Guycn2 can reply Erez in the other feedback section or here, but not in the both places. If you allowed it, other users might put their replies also in the other feedback section.

Guycn2's restore of his text is also an edit war. He had to ask your permission to return his text, but did not do it.

The comment of Guycn2 of his ownership upon his two texts does not make clear why he edited my text yesterday. _Louvre|Talk 14:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Restoring the text on this page was fine. I am pretty sure that, like me, other U4C members are able to grasp the differences between two texts. The official request now is to refrain from removing or restoring content of other users, thank you --Civvì (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Louvre: I'm sorry to say this, but given the sheer volume of your comments all across the complaint page—as well as the previous RfC page addressing the same issues—I find it rather ironic that you take it upon yourself to police and interfere with my two comments. I appreciate Civvì for his official clarification in the comment above. Guycn2 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand why it was not ended. Yesterday Guycn2 changed my text, and now he stalked me. _Louvre|Talk 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

(offensive comment removed)
Regardless of the language skills (anyone can write in Hebrew if they feel more comfortable than in English), insulting other users does not really seem to me to be a good way to participate in a discussion whose goal should be to find (satisfactory) solutions. Thank you. --Civvì (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

To build on what Civvi wrote, language fluency is protected under the UCoC if someone does try to communicate in English. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If you allow, I would say that the language was intended to hide the person, whose identity has already been found by Calanit on the He WP checkuser page, as well as today: two i.p., same ISP. _Louvre|Talk 15:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Reply to user:אמא של (Imma Shel)

Hi everyone.
I was surprised to see my name mentioned here in Imma Shel’s message. For some reason, I also did not receive a tag, so I was unaware that her complaint included me. Since others likely did not receive the tag either, I am tagging User:Guycn2, who was not previously mentioned in the complaint.

Regarding the issue at hand, I will attempt to respond to the points raised by Imma Shel. First, I would like to clarify that I was not part of the investigation team, and I even disagreed with some of the blocks that were imposed (especially those affecting experienced and contributing editors). For example, I supported the unblocking of Hila in an administrators’ vote. In any case, I am still not fully aware of all the reasons behind the blocks, so I cannot provide additional insight.

As for the actions that were allegedly suspicious, I performed them after seeing, like everyone else, the bureaucrats’ response in the village pump. They announced that certain votes would be reopened, and I acted based on the table they published on the case page. Shortly after I began this process, I received an email from one of the bureaucrats stating, “You are more than welcome to continue the good work of modifying and updating the votes according to what I published on the case page. Thank you.” In that email, I also asked him when it would be best to reopen the votes - immediately (as I initially did) or after some time. If you look at later edits, you will see that I changed the reopening date to a later time just a few hours afterward. If anyone wishes to see this email thread for verification (especially Imma Shel...), I would be happy to share it.
At that point, I was under the impression that most, if not all, of the blocks were due to sockpuppetry. I did not fully understand that many blocks were also imposed for behind-the-scenes vote canvassing.

Regarding the addition of templates to user pages—I did not create that template. I simply noticed that some blocked users had the template added to their pages while others did not, so I completed the missing ones. Many of these users had “לא בא לתרום” (“Not here to contribute”) listed as the block reason, and it was not entirely clear why they were blocked.

Regarding the request to update the voting eligibility script—you can see that about an hour after the bureaucrats published their announcement, I read it and immediately requested to update the script. Otherwise, their announcement would have had no effect. No one manually checks voting eligibility; the script alone determines it. (For example, when the new eligibility policy we worked on together was approved in the parliament, it only took effect once I implemented the updated script version, about a week after the vote concluded.) This script is crucial, which is why it needed updating. At that time, I was not an interface editor, so I asked the interface editor who had been working extensively on improving the script to update it. There was no preference given to Guy, who supported this initiative, and it is clear that at the time I made the request, there was support for the update even from those who later became leading opponents of these actions.

Regarding my nomination for administrator, the reason I was nominated was that I had previously run for the position in January of that year. The vote was heavily influenced by behind-the-scenes canvassing (which I only became aware of when LaNava was blocked and revealed information about another user; before that, I had no knowledge of such canvassing). If you look at that discussion, you will find a comment from a user stating their opposition to my candidacy because I “do not encourage pluralism.” [1] This comment still weighs heavily on me to this day, first because I do believe in pluralism, and second because it epitomized the nature of that discussion. I, an editor who does not engage in Wikipedia politics at all, had to endure an administrator nomination process that was entirely political and factional, through no fault of my own.

Anyone who knows me knows that I despise politics and avoid it like the plague, and that discussion still pains me to this day. I can share that I seriously debated whether to accept the nomination in that expedited election, still feeling the sting of the previous discussion.

Imma Shel, regarding your final claim—that I participated in the RFC without proper disclosure—I am mostly disappointed. You know me. We worked together extensively on the voting eligibility policy. You know that I am someone who values integrity and that I would never participate in a discussion with a conflict of interest without making the appropriate disclosure. Moreover, I did not express support for the actions in that discussion; rather, I pointed out flaws and gaps in the complaint and emphasized that I disagreed with some of the measures taken and that I was not involved in the investigation. At that time, I was also not an administrator, and I had no more information than you or any other editor.

On a personal note, I was surprised to find that you suspect me in this manner and have drawn conclusions—contrary to what I have stated multiple times—based on unclear data. I ask that you immediately retract these serious accusations.

Thank you, Neriah - 💬 - 23:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way, @Imma Shel, one more point. I was surprised by your statement that Guy participated in the investigation, so I looked at the example you provided, where he changed vote results before the bureaucrats announced the blocks. I saw that all the votes he modified were completely unrelated to this case—they were related to the user "Miluimnik," a sockpuppet of the troll Andersen...
To be honest, I have no idea whether he was involved in the investigation. I had always assumed he wasn't, based on his style of responses on the matter, but I never really had a solid reason to believe one way or the other... Neriah - 💬 - 23:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It is important for me to note that User:Neria is not one of the editors we are complaining about and is an editor and admin that I highly respect.

But the phenomenon of involving editors without authority, in such moves in the dark, (as User:Gilgamash noted here and here, regarding himself), made me and others wonder who those editors were, (the previous bureaucrats refused to update the community) and your actions mentioned above raised questions.

This is another example of the great damage that the bureaucrats' actions have done to the community, which is ultimately based on trust, and further proof that an external investigation is needed to find out who was involved.

Personally, you and I did an excellent job together on the subject of preparing the voting rights proposal and I knew you to be a trustworthy person, who knows how to cooperate and reach agreements. I was also surprised to discover, after we worked together, that you were the one who carried out this sequence of actions that clearly takes sides. I was also surprised to see that you were the first to rush to respond to the complaint to the RFC, which is of course your right. אמא של (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, when I took these actions, I still believed that the vast majority of the blocks, if not all of them, were against users who had operated sock puppets, similar to other cases that had occurred in the past. Therefore, there was no reason to think that I was part of the group conducting the checks :). In fact, I am curious to know who they are, but I do not bother searching through users' contributions from many months ago and trying to cross-reference information...
As for the fact that I was the first to respond to the previous complaint, it does not surprise me personally. It even makes quite a lot of sense. I am the only editor on hewiki who regularly follows what happens on Meta, partly as part of my role as a global renamer... If the complaint had not been announced on the noticeboard (I don't remember who posted it there), it is doubtful whether anyone besides me would have seen it. Neriah - 💬 - 21:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Reply to User:Sofiblum

Hello Sofiblum, User:Geagea supported a troll while writing in 2021: "No valid reasone to block". Here are examples of harassments and vandalizing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

In the He WP City Square, Geagea wrote, as a part of a group: "אני בשיח עם אותו דייל". The reply was: "The original lock was somewhat problematic, as the user had not been blocked anywhere else and the block was made by someone with a conflict of interest. Since unlocking, I have chatted with an hewiki user who is also a sysop on commons who indicated that there were not disruptive activities on commons as of yet".

I am not User:Dorian Gray Wild (Dorian), and edited in collaboration with Geagea. I asked him if I could put a link to youtube, and got his reply. The troll קרוליס also wrote there, but he was out of scope.

User:Dovno voided the blocking of Sipifi, and allowed Sipifi to use open proxy i.p. for bypassing the block.

Dovno also requested blocking Dorian due to Dorian's applications, comparing Meta to court. Dovno wrote that Bikoret said to Dorian: "למרות שאתה משתמש ותיק, וכדי לא להשאיר מקומות אפורים, בפעם הבאה שבה תתפלמס עם עורך אחר על עריכותיו או עריכותיך תיחסם".
User:גארפילד and Geagea joined Dovno: 1, 2. User:ערן (Eran) replied to Dovno that the claims were not right, but Dovno did not agree with Eran, who was a bureaucrat.

Afterwards, Dovno terminated his role, but Geagea turned Dorian into an issue of years. Now Geagea claimed against many users, and User:יונה בנדלאק (Yona) joined Geagea. The He WP does not belong to Geagea and Yona.

The U4C may read also this discussion, which complies with the above reactions of the He WP admins. The situation was simple: The WMF changed the formal 2FA request to a practical one, and there was no room to blame the WMF for it. The boat of the He WP was the WMF. It was not "we" and "them". When Dorian asked to remove an interface administrator permission of User:חיים 7 (Chaim), due to his stalking after Dorian, being assisted by the troll Sasson, as it was reported by La Nave Partirà, Chaim requested a global lock of Dorian. For the U4C I would state Partirà's words: 'Despite Chaim's abusive behavior, and despite Dovno's lying on the fence for him'.

User:Gabi S., who registered in 2006, applied checking User:רועי59 (Roy) and User:משה657 (Moshe), who registered both on 2 April 2025: Roy at 22:41, and Moshe at 20:42. Both of them edited a contentious topic: ימין רדיקלי בישראל (Far-right politics in Israel). Their names are almost identical, and they edited only this article, both with a visual editor. Moshe added a lot of text, deleted the "See also" chapter, and Roy added the "See also" which Moshe deleted. Buffalo, a checkuser and admin who registered also in 2006, declined Gabi's application, claiming that Roy added just a dot. It was untrue, because Roy stated: "Adding "See Also"". When I registered, I created new articles, did not edit contentious topics. Furthermore, Buffalo did not vote for blocking User:יעקב. Barak and Geagea did, but not Buffalo. Usually checkusers do not decline applications, but Buffalo did. Afterwards, User:דגש, an admin, checkuser and interface admin who hardly edits, joined Buffalo, less than an hour. A troll requested to check me, and Barak blocked me after more than two months without asking any bureaucrat. Buffalo identified a sock who made only 100 edits in a year, asked a bureaucrat to block him, did not reveal the sock, who vandalized like Sasson: "Yay, here's my twin brother", but blocked indefinitely User:35 of May, who made 2,297 edits, without checking and without asking a bureaucrat. _Louvre|Talk 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but what does any of this trivia have to do with the complaint in question? Guycn2 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, I hope you would see my reply here.

User:Dorian Gray Wild (Dorian) was globally locked after he had made an RFC dealing with Dovno, as found in the same category with the last RFC.

Ajraddatz confirmed that the lock was out of scope ("The block was made by someone with a conflict of interest").

I would add that declaring Dorian as a "troll" by Funcs was also out of scope. The result was publishing me in the user page of Dorian in Hebrew, although checking my user took more than two months, and was not valid. It was not valid also because a declared troll (Sasson) harassed the checkusers with this request, and with other requests, which dealt with טלי אביב for example. טלי אביב registered the He WP after me, and it was her only "violation". _Louvre|Talk 17:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Did this all happen in 2022? If so it falls outside the time period we are examining. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have changed some text: added a diff of Ajraddatz comment, which was in 2024, not in 2022. Also added that Dorian's RFC was in the same category as the last RFC.

Replying you, it is the same He WP, same bureaucrats' policy (Sofiblum explained that Erez warned the community) and the same issue: block the users who made the RFC/U4C application.

Blocking Louvre was done on 29 December 2024, and was obscure. As Sofiblum wrote, the admins blocked Louvre due to their anger of Dorian, although the check was not valid. For the same reason, Funcs declared Dorian in February 2025, not in 2022. _Louvre|Talk 18:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not write anything concerning users Louvre and Dorian and I am not familiar with the events to which you referred. Please do not attribute to me something I did not write Sofiblum (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The diff wrote: "The message conveyed to the community is, of course, a warning not to dare complain against those with permissions".

Yona did not invent the wheel, nor Erez. It has been existing since 2022, and other He WP admins used it as well as the person which Ajraddatz stated.

I would remove my text. The U4C may read the history of my text, if they wish to clarify something. _Louvre|Talk 20:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Avoidance of blocking identified socks while blocking users which were not identified

Hello U4C, User:Yuri complained against a user who registered about a year ago, did less than 100 edits and used LTA in the He WP article (please see the edit summary), village pump, RFC (was not allowed to write there, due to the page's restrictions) and Yuri's talk page. This user simply harassed User:יעקב in the same manner other socks like it, it and it harassed contributing users. No need to say that the last two harassing users were not blocked until today.

User:PurpleBuffalo (Buffalo) checked the sock in 20 hours, identified it as a blocked user, and moved the results to the bureaucrats. The sock was not blocked, although User:ארז האורז edited on 25 March 2025.

Checking my user took two months, and I was blocked just because I thanked the checkusers.

Buffalo asked 35 of May to edit the He WP on 27 August 2024, but blocked him just 4 days later, on 31 August 2024, without checking his user.

From the talk page of Bikoret, I reached it. I found additional users which were blocked without any check:

Buffalo blocked User:אידריס, who has never edited the He WP, on 24 August 2024.

Buffalo blocked User:D&Dr, a minute before blocking אידריס. Last edit of D&Dr was on 1 March 2024.

User:Bell Park was blocked on 19 February 2025, and an article which he wrote, was deleted.

Also, these two posts: 1 ("בהתייעצות עם שני מפעילים אחרים"), 2 ("I received an email from one of the bureaucrats") confirm that the admin was a part of different groups, instead of consulting on the talk pages. _Louvre|Talk 13:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you are still trying to smear my name. I was starting to think you had left me alone after you initiated deletion discussions - using sockpuppets - on two articles I wrote on the English Wikipedia (probably because you knew that if you had tried to do so on Hebrew Wikipedia, you would have been caught...). At least I take comfort in the fact that your (desperate, if I may say so) outing attempts against me have failed, and I have not received hate mail at my home from you, unlike other editors who were subjected to that.
You really made me laugh with your claim that I was part of different groups. There is nothing wrong with consulting another editor to check whether there is a policy issue regarding the timing of a specific vote, and to be even more certain, consulting yet another person. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with receiving an email from someone thanking me for doing something, with a small instruction regarding it, and later in the same thread, asking that person another question on the matter (ironically, that too was about a voting date...).
You are trying, once again, to defame me for no wrongdoing. I helped you via email multiple times before you were blocked, and your ingratitude is truly disheartening.
I fully request that the stewards globally lock your main account and the large number of sockpuppets you operate, and to undo the mistake of lifting the lock a year ago. Pinging the steward EPIC in case he can assist with this. Neriah - 💬 - 13:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I ask the U4C to see what the admin wrote here without any link or diff. Their reply is full of threats, and they did not reply the main issue which I raised: blocking contributing users, deleting their articles while not blocking trolling socks. _Louvre|Talk 17:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I only responded to the ridiculous claim against me. I didn’t bother reading the rest of your words. Neriah - 💬 - 18:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, a. My response is not full of threats, only a request to block you along with your numerous sock puppets. b. Which links are missing? I’ll also note that my response is unrelated to U4C, and those involved are welcome to contact me for further details. Neriah - 💬 - 18:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

On 25 October 2024, I asked the admins to redact harassment of an identified sock. Buffalo deleted my application after nine minutes without any edit summary, because the troll קרוליס requested a checkuser a day ago, on 24 October.

Until 29 December 2024 nothing has been revealed.

Therefore, checking me for more than two months was not valid, as it took only 20 hours to identify a sock on 24 March 2025.

This sock of a blocked user, harassed Buffalo on his talk page, accused Buffalo of "lying", and vandalized Buffalo's page by i.p. users, which were not deleted nor blocked. An identified blocked person was not allowed to harass a checkuser on their talk page.

Buffalo blocked the identified sock for 24 hours, but blocked 35 of May, D&Dr and אידריס indefinitely, although they were not identified as socks. User:ארז האורז did not write any confirmation on the talk page, and it might not be accepted. The sock used i.p. also there, and entered into trolling.

The identified sock also claimed: "הבדיקה הזה התחילה בחטא" (This check began with a sin). Checking me was done with a sin, because קרוליס, an identified troll, requested it, and it has been done more than two months after the request. _Louvre|Talk 19:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Replies to User:Funcs

The reply of Funcs was mainly an attack, and affirmed the application to the U4C.

Funcs raised claims, which reflected her conduct as a bureaucrat.

The comment of Sofiblum did not deal with Funcs, but with the admins' vote. Funcs was not mentioned there even once, nor Erez. From my viewpoint, I was quite puzzled why Bikoret told Dorian: "בפעם הבאה שבה תתפלמס עם עורך אחר, תיחסם", But Erez made an admins vote. Erez was a bureaucrat exactly as Bikoret.

Although Sofiblum stated an admin vote, Funcs turned this stake into a whole round circus tent, with acrobats, horses and clowns. Due to Funcs, Sofiblum became the deep state of the He WP. Sofiblum became Gali Baharav-Miara, High Court of Justice, Ronen Bar and Nadav Argaman.

I did not understand how "Catch 22" sparked Funcs. If the bureaucrats did what they were expected to do, I guess there was no application to the U4C. If someone is applied due to a step, and undo this step, it could be reported. Who keep themselves in a fortress, cannot complain.

Funcs has a tendency to be in a fortress. She did it also with Dorian, when User:HiyoriX undid the vandalizing of the declared troll Sasson, not Funcs nor Garfield, as Dorian replied me. I asked him why Funcs made a "troll" declaration, because due to it, I was also declared, although I did not do anything wrong, as I have already written more than once. Funcs, as well as Barak, Buffalo, Geagea and Dovno, were fed by Sasson and fed Sasson.

Bikoret wrote: "אני מקווה שהאנשים האחראיים בקרן ויקימדיה יבינו את הסיטואציה ולא יקבלו החלטה שתסכן את קיומו של המיזם הקטן שלנו בעברית". It is their main error. The He WP is not "their little project". There is no ownership of the He WP by anyone who does not own the server, or was not elected to the U4C. Bikoret also wrote: "זו טעות, כי אנשים איכותיים יבחרו להתמקד בכתיבת ערכים ולא להיות מעורבים בניהול הקהילה". What was the issue? Editors were expected to write an encyclopedia, not to play with roles and attacks, as the troll Sasson did endlessly. User:Liz, who was an admin, an arbcom member and a checkuser, wrote clearly against editors who inquired endlessly socks instead of writing articles. Bikoret also wrote the same when he was a bureaucrat.

The U4C is welcome also to read what happened to Liri Albag after she had critisized Netanyahu. One of the reactions was: "If God Himself comes out against Bibi – He too will be cursed".

The WMF wrote a notice on the He Wikipedia:News. The notice dealt with a person, but it was moved to the He WP village pump, which dealt with general policy. On 9 April 2025, User:אייל (Eyal) revived the text, which was deleted on 3 April 2025. User:Barak a deleted my talk page, but the user page in question has not been purged. Therefore, Eyal published it again at the He WP village pump. I did not figure out the template which Eyal put, as well as his words: "God will have vengeance". Due to time of Eyal's registration, he has never been involved with the person.

User:I08k, who registered on 9 July 2019, vandalized twice the page of User:רונאלדיניו המלך (Tal), a user since 2006: 1, 2. The first editing of I08k was a Wikilove on 26 May 2024 at the talk page of the User:כל השמות תפוסים (Tfusim), who registered on 16 May 2024. Tal requested checking I08k, it took only two minutes (my check took more than two months), and Tfusim was identified. Barak blocked Tfusim for a day, and asked a confirmation from Funcs (Barak blocked me indefinitely without any confirmation). Funcs replied that she was surprised due to her "good" interaction with Tfusim. There was no "good interaction" with a user who registered in 2019, froze the user during four years and 11.5 months, registered another user in 2024, and in 2025 vandalized a veteran user page. By a Wikilove from Tfusim on Funcs' talk page, Funcs edited an article three times: 1, 2, 3. It was her "good interaction" with Tfusim, who deleted the article's talk page, claiming that it was a "draft" when Funcs commented there. I would never delete a bureaucrat's comments, no matter what the reason was. After the second deletion, which was 19 days after Funcs' first undoing it, she did not undo it, not even after identifying I08k as Tfusim. All actions of Tfusim and I08 seemed to me as Sasson's actions. He deleted bureaucrats and admins comments, like the User:הויקיפדון did on Buffalo. As I wrote, Sasson fed Funcs, and she fed Sasson. _Louvre|Talk 17:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Moved from case page

Dear Funcs. I have a lot of respect for you, both as an editor and as a person (even though we've actually met very few times, and very briefly). Unfortunately, once you became a bureaucrat you chose to believe the stories about an alleged "bias group", without conversing with me or (AFAIK) other blocked users. Now you've echoed these serious allegations here, and like other responders to this case you didn't back them with any evidence, nor did you explain what convinced you that such a group exists, or that any of the writers and signatories of the RFC had an intension to bias Wikipedia or "push an agenda". You all just keep stating this opinion as if it's a fact - a very un-wikipedian behavior, actually.

You mention being disappointed by the RFC and this case, well I must say sadly that the disappointment is mutual. I actually hoped you'd get elected for bureaucrat, and if I wasn't blocked I would have voted for you! Like the rest of the unprecedented concensus who supported you, I perceived you as an honest, neutral and thorough person, and believed that as a bureaucrat you would at least let the blocked users know why they were blocked, show them the evidence against them, and set a time frame for the reevaluation of their block, or at least appoint a transparent committee to re-examine these cases.

Sadly, you didn't do any of that. Instead, you chose to embrace the ways of Erez, who is indeed an outspoken supporter of the previous bureaucrats' draconian measures, and together you neglected to fix their wrongdoings towards seemingly innocent users; you ignored some admins' direct threats of permanent blocks to all signatories of the legitimate RFC and C4U case; you clang to a few examples of borderline debatable edits to justify Sofiblum's block; and you didn't enforce a-political edits and NPOV on nationalist and religious editors. I don't want to throw blames at you, because I'm sure that you're in a complicated and delicate situation, having to face everyone's conflicting expectations, but I am still disappointed. As a bureaucrat, do you really agree that it's against the rules to ask for international Wikimedia's help after all local solutions were tried and failed? If not - why didn't you respond to the admins who claimed this, when you know that silence is sometimes interpreted as agreement?

I'm a great believer in Wikipedia, in its ideology and in its ability to fix itself - but I'm afraid that the Hebrew Wikipedia have drifted too far away from Wikimedia's original values, and needs help to get back on its tracks. I'm certain that you, as one of hewiki's most respected users, can and should take a major part in this healing process, and I hope that you would accept this challenge. Respectfully yours, איתמראשפר (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll clarify a few things about my previous comment.

First, I didn’t present any evidence simply because I wasn’t making any new claims that require evidence. I was responding to a public comment by Sofiblum, expressing my views on the discourse surrounding it and on the broader atmosphere we’re currently experiencing in Wikipedia. That’s not a matter of proof - it’s a matter of how I see and experience the situation.

Also, I have no intention of engaging in a detailed discussion about this matter on this page. When someone from the relevant committee reaches out to me directly, I’ll be more than willing to have a full, honest conversation and to provide any clarification or information they need. Looking carefully, you’ll probably notice that I didn’t respond to any argument related to the main topic - I intentionally chose not to get into the substance of the case here.

Regarding the idea of a “bias group”: I actually never used that phrase, and it’s important to me to be precise about what I actually said. I referred to a group of editors who worked together on the RFC - something that, as far as I understand, everyone involved has acknowledged. I didn’t invent this, and I didn’t attribute any hidden intentions or label it in a conspiratorial way. So, again, there’s no need for me to “prove” something that was openly discussed.

You mentioned that I didn’t speak with blocked editors. Just because you're not aware of certain conversations doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Not every discussion is public or visible to everyone, and I can assure you that dialogue has taken place in different forms and settings. Funcs (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:איתמראשפר and User:Funcs, I've moved the discussion from the case page. The case page is not meant to be a place for discussion among users. Thanks Civvì (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Vandalizing articles and feeding trolls

A user vandalized the article Star Wars: The Bad Batch (The Bad Batch) in the He WP: 1, 2, 3. It was a vandalism, because they remained links anchoring nowhere: 1, 2, 3. Furthermore, User:adamstom97 warned them from vandalizing television series articles, pointing out MOS:TV.

After three minuts, they requested from the He WP admins a deletion of User:35 of May (May) page, asking if its text was "legal". After additional 29 minutes, they applied also the admin User:דוד שי (Shay), claiming that May was a sock of User:Dorian Gray Wild (Dorian), although there was not a checking user on May. Shay declined their request. Another admin invited them from their sock user (non-admin user) to email them, repeating their gruop behaviour. They harassed also Ajraddatz, stating: "Your reason for his release is delusional", and the admin User:HiyoriX. HiyoriX deleted the accusations which the troll Sasson spread on the Dorian talk page, by using a vandalism i.p., which Funcs, Garfield and Buffalo avoided from deleting, as I was told. Afterwards, Funcs declared Dorian as a "troll".

In the end, the user in question (who was not Sasson) was blocked from the En WP, due to a decision of five En HP admins: User:Yamla, User:Drmies, User:Rosguill, User:331dot and User:Liz, but kept accusing Dorian in the He WP without providing evidence.

Buffalo refused also to check User:תלמיד הגרד"ש זי"ע, and claimed that is was clear that it was a long-time user in a costume, but they did not see any justification to check at the moment. It was permissible to use a sock as long as it did not violate the rules, and they did not find any violations of the rules. Afterwards, Buffalo found that it was Sasson, but did not redirect the user to Sasson's page. Instead, they deleted the user page. The page of May was redirected to Dorian, although there was no checking of May. Sasson also vandalized The Bad Batch (every modification of a declared troll is considered vandalism), but was not checked nor blocked. It replaced the image like this user did: The original image was here, but it vandalized the article by putting a dark image. A third vavdalizing i.p. mocked the vandalizing user at the former time: 1, 2, 3, 4. These three users were Sasson, but they were not checked nor blocked. I asked to check this user, but it was not done. Sasson harassed an additional user, he was blocked without checking the user.

Politheory1983, who was a He WP admin, wrote in the He WP village pump: "אני כן רואה בעיה במצב שהבודקים הם חוקרים, שופטים, מוציאים לפועל וגם לא יכולים לתת דין וחשבון והסבר לקהילה". Buffalo replied: "מותר לציין בפני הקהילה קשר בין שני משתמשים רשומים", but did not tell who הויקיפדון was. Buffalo also wrote: "תנו לטרולים, המשחיתים והמתחזים להשתולל", but it is what they did: all the trolls which I stated: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, have remained free. On the other hand, Buffalo blocked אידריס, after a The Turtle Ninja and user claimed that אידריס "harassed" him, although אידריס did not edit anywhere. The user harassed himself, as it was linked in the He WP a week ago.

User:TalyaNe was right when she wrote: "To me, the Hebrew Wikipedia can no longer be considered a reliable place". Calanit stated Émile Zola. Funcs declared Louvre was as a "troll" due to Zola (Dorian), who was harassed by Sasson, which was fed by Dovno, Garfield, Bufallo and Funcs. Here is an example how Funcs fed Sasson, after the user, who was harassed by Sasson, had refused to delete from his userspace a template which Funcs created, although he fully credited her for this template. Funcs wanted to delete the template just because he made a different width, which was similar to this width. Due to this reason, Funcs blocked him, being fed by Sasson. _Louvre|Talk 20:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello U4C, please see also this vandalism. It was done by the user who was indefinitely blocked from the En WP after violating his IBAN with Dorian. In the He WP, nobody is allowed to edit a user page. An He admin lost his adminship after he had edited user pages.

May was not a "troll" when he edited his user page. The editing was done on 31 August 2024. Funcs declared Dorian on 18 February 2025, due to her personal motivation, which had been reflected in "her" template. May has never been checked by the He WP checkusers, nor the user which Funcs had blocked due to the harassment of Sasson on the He WP checkusers page. _Louvre|Talk 19:17, 19 Ap asril 2025 (UTC)

Here is another act of vandalism and harassment by Sasson from today. It was not deleted, and the user was not blocked. _Louvre|Talk 21:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is an additional vandalism of the user who vandalized the article "Star Wars: The Bad Batch" in the He WP.

The editing of the i.p. was correct, but the user undid it without any edit summary.

Nobody warned this user nor blocked him, although he was warned not to deal with i.p. users. It was the reason why the En WP decided that this user was NOTHERE. _Louvre|Talk 15:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Reply to TalyaNe

Hello TalyaNe, I liked to watch your video. You were self-confident, knew everything and were professional.

Now there is a state of chaos in the He WP. I hope to deal with it later. You know that every word has its weight, and every day which passes adds new facts and new clear visions.

For now, I would reply Yuri, after he had lifted for landing:

1. He WP is a dark place under a control of a religious-national group.

Yes. See the lecture of Talya and the words which were written today in the "מפעיל נולד" discussion.

2. This group advanced its people, prevented other people, changed rules, blocked editors without any warning, terrified its opponents and was selective with rules' enforcement.

Yes to every statement. I and others wrote here about it. See also Gabi S. who was not elected as a checkuser nor admin (in two different elections!)

3. Due to these actions, there was a hostile atmosphere in the He WP.

Yes. See מפעיל נולד.

4. The elections of the last bureaucrats were not fair due to changes of the voting rights, and massive blocks.

Right.

5. Despite the bureaucrats were changed, the situation was not changed. Nothing has been corrected.

Right. See the reply of Funcs to TalyaNe.

6. He WP is similar to the State of Israel, which losses its democracy.

Right. Several editors here are in a worse situation than the situations of Gali Baharav-Miara, Ronen Bar and Nadav Argaman. _Louvre|Talk 20:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello TalyaNe, I wrote to you again, after I read your question today. You asked Yona if he intended to block users who signed this U4C application. Here I add that Tal is a very good editor. I remember that he signed the RFC. There was no reason to block him for it.

Back to the point: Yona claimed that he deleted a link from my user page. He was not allowed to do it. He did it after another user applied him privately in the same way he told another user to apply him, and requested it. Yona also requested to block me from Meta. The user who applied him, requested here my global lock, tagging a steward.

If you examine my user page, you will not find anything wrong there.

Blocking is intended to prevent a future violation, not to "punish".

I asked Yona about deleting a talk page of an article. I saw your comment about closing a discussion in a talk page of another article, which led nowhere. What I asked Yona, was worse than it, but Yona "knew nothing", because I took a part in the RFC, and was called a "troll" due to it. Then Funcs declared Dorian, due to the link which Yona claimed that he deleted. I know that someone sent to the U4C the article's talk page which Yona refused to delete, but did not know who. _Louvre|Talk 19:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yom HaZikaron starts at 17:00 UTC. I hope I could write a few words.

1. I am not Dorian.
2. I was not involved with any editing of Dorian. I wrote fine articles about movies which Brigitte Bardot starred.
3. I did not make the RFC.
4. I did not make the U4C application.
5. There was no reason to block me, and I explained it much more than once.
6. The troll Sasson feeds the He WP, and the He WP feeds Sasson. Today, TheStriker, a checkuser, wrote to Imma Shel: "I have no idea why Sasson was not blocked (as i.p.) from writing on users' talk pages". Sasson added and wrote as a registered user (since yesterday) on this talk page, but nobody blocked it nor checked it. _Louvre|Talk 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Removal of content

As I wrote in the edit summary, of course we respect the wish to withdraw from a case or a discussion but completely removing the previous participation makes the page undreadable. So please, feel free to strike through (using <s></s>) your replies or comments but do not remove them, thanks. Civvì (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the 1st conclusion

Barkeep49 I respect the team's decision to break the case into several investigations, and I believe that I'd do the same if I were in your shoes. I also respect your choice to assume good faith and believe the crats acted with good intensions. However, I do wish to remind you that the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions, and that in this case numerous editors went through the Wikipedian equivalent to hell: permanent blocks with no explanation, evidence or a right to appeal. Has the committee seen the evidence, and checked their authenticity? Did the committee receive a translation of the evidence by a third, non involved, party? Has the committee examined the screenshots which were published in the same forum as the "discriminating screenshots" against me, and allegedly show the involvement of an admin and a bureaucrat with the right-leaning group of editors who were blocked in early June 2024? Do you consider the hasty, reckless, mass blocks with no explanation or hope for pardon - a reasonable act? do wonder. Sorry for the bitterness, I'm a bit surprised that you found nothing wrong in the crats' actions)I איתמראשפר (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say I found nothing wrong in the crats' actions writing, "While I am not sure yet if I agree with everything they did...". What we have done is examine the evidence that was used and find that the blocks were not a systemic failure by targeting people on one side of Israeli political life as they were accused of doing. If we had found the opposite, our next steps would look very different. And what I personally commented on is that there was a problem with canvassing distorting hewiki votes such that doing nothing would have potentially itself led to systemic failure. Put another way, I do not believe the crats made up the problem they were attempting to solve with the mass blocks. As there was no systemic failure with the blocks we will not focus our attention on a different aspect of this case and investigation - one of which will be about the blocks individually rather than our current look at the collective action. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Barkeep49, for clarifying that point, it means a lot. Truthfully, the committee's decision reminds me of my own reaction to the first mass block: I too thought that the blocks, while exaggerated, were meant to solve a real problem. Before the 2nd wave, in which I was blocked myself, I even participated in several discussions about specific users whom I thought were blocked by mistake (ironically, the users I defended were right leaning) and about forging harsher conditions for voting rights. It took some time, and more blocks, until I realized that while the number of blocks from political sides was similar, the quality was a different story: on the right, only new users and mostly wikignomes were blocked, while on the left some veteran and substantial users were blocked. I later realized that many blocked users voted in favor of removing a bureaucrat's permissions, which made me wonder if the blocks were also related to internal hewiki politics. Anyways I trust that the committee is doing meticulous research and I thank all of you for that. איתמראשפר (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I talked more about this idea here. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Feedback to Barkeep49's suggestion

Barkeep49 Thank you for you suggestion about the appeals. Like Sofiblum, I think it's a good plan, a step in the right direction and a great opportunity for everyone to sort things out openly and calmly. However, I did notice that a week has passed since you suggested it, and the only reply you received was from Sofiblum - the Hebrew bureaucrats and their supporters here have completely ignored your msssage, and it doesn't seem like someone intends to cooperate with the U4C committee's decision, or establish the much needed appeal committee in hewiki. Do you think this is an act of defiance towards the U4C committee's authority? What means do you guys have to enforce your decisions on defiant local projects? Thanks, Ithamar איתמראשפר (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There are lots of parties to this case and only one has replied. I do not think everyone is being defiant. I think it's equally likely that parties haven't seen it (because they are not checking meta) and that they think it's OK and thus don't say anything. So I am not at all concerned that there is defiance here, especially as the crats have, as we noted in our motion, been cooperative with us. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thank you (and the whole committee) for the careful work you have invested so far.

Your finding that the June 2024 mass blocks do not constitute a systemic failure will surprise no one who is active on Hebrew Wikipedia, including the complainants themselves. Unfortunately, that obvious point did not stop this very well organised group from devoting months to persuading the U4C that hewiki is “run by a nationalist cabal.” In my view, it is one of the most coordinated and disruptive efforts any Wikimedia project has faced. Long before the meta case was filed, the group was already close to producing an actual systemic breakdown through off-wiki canvassing, article bias, and pointed attacks on admins and bureaucrats. They were stopped only at the last moment.

• Only a fraction of the group’s 60 + members were blocked. The rest simply lowered their profile and are likely watching to see whether they can resume the same tactics.
• Countless volunteer hours have been poured into reverting their biased edits, countering canvassed votes, and now, answering an extraordinarily long complaint that rests on claims the committee has largely rejected.

Given those facts, I hope the U4C will consider whether another full round of appeals is the best use of everyone’s time. While I fully support every blocked editor’s right to a fair hearing, you have already concluded that the mass blocks were evidence-based, applied in good faith, and not politically one-sided. If the core premise of the complaint is unfounded, is it really necessary to reopen every single block?

I am also uneasy with the idea that three U4C members, none of whom edit hewiki, could unintentionally undercut local consensus even after ruling out systemic failure. Project norms differ: conduct that merits a lengthy block on hewiki might be viewed as minor elsewhere, and vice versa. My concern, therefore, is the mechanism, not the principle.

An alternative that still safeguards due process

1. Each blocked user should receive a summary of the evidence (excluding anything that could compromise future investigations) and be given a fair chance to respond before a local decision is made on the appeal.
2. If the local panel grants the appeal, the matter ends.
3. If the panel denies the appeal, the U4C may, at its discretion, post a concise statement on hewiki explaining why it believes the block should be lifted or shortened.
4. Under hewiki policy, any long-term block can be already reopened for community discussion and vote. A dual vote would then run on the same page, close after seven days, and use two parallel tallies:
   • One ballot limited to users with blocking rights (the standard practice for block appeals in hewiki).
   • One ballot open to all editors who meet the hewiki voting criteria (have voting right).
5. If both ballots agree, their decision stands. Only if the gap is so wide that it signals an underlying legitimacy problem would the U4C step in with a binding ruling. This keeps final authority with the local community unless that community is itself highly divided.

In my opinion, such a model preserves U4C oversight without removing agency from the hewiki community. Yuri (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It is thoughtful and worthy of consideration. The summary of evidence you propose goes farther than what we're proposing. But it also is at the heart of why I mooted the U4C exercising its right to hear an appeal in this case. Under your proposal if the U4C says "private evidence (which can't be made public as it would compromise future investigations) is insufficient to justify a block", I don't know how much that helps the hewiki community make a decision and it remains stacked against the person appealing - they have to win 2 votes. I don't know about that dynamic. However, I will say that in this case "a lengthy block on hewiki might be viewed as minor elsewhere, and vice versa" doesn't really apply here. Hewiki does more voting than many projects, it is true, but attempting to undermine community governance through offwiki subversion is basically the reason for the indefinite block here and I think that would be equally true on any of the projects the U4C members come from. I indeed recognize that very fact in my vote for the motion. Bottom line remains I appreciate the suggestion here and it will definitely be discussed. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49 You wrote was that you were shown evidence which convinced you that the mass blocks were not one-sided politically - but this careful and minimalistic statement was quickly misquoted by Yuri as "you already concluded that the blocks were evidence-based". This is not only a misinterpretation of your words above, but also a direct contradiction to the committee's only passed motion so far, which clearly says "The U4C has not concluded its investigation into the specifics of the blocks, in particular whether some of the blocks may have had insufficient evidence". This creative interpretation of statements is a pattern which repeats in Yuri's misrepresentation of our claims in this case - for example, where did we claim that "hewiki is run by a nationalist cabal"?! Nowhere. This reductive exaggeration, and especially the use of conspiracy-theory lingo, is an inappropriate ridicule of the case and its writers.

(Amazingly, while falsely accusing us of making "secret cabal" claims, Yuri is hurling the very same accusation at us! According to him, the writers of this case and the signatories of the RFC are a coordinated secretive group of 60+ members who are determined to breakdown Wikipedia by inserting biased edits and attacking admins, and who now keep a low profile, awaiting an opportunity to resume their evil plans. But what evidence does he present to this incredible story? NONE. This is just mud-throwing and smoke screening, and I'm sure that the committee is wise enough to see through it.)

Other creative interpretations of facts by Yuri are his claim that the mass blocks were a "a local concensus" (they were and still are disputed by many veteran editors); his claim about "countless volunteer hours" being poured into responding this case (four out of seven parties didn't even bother to respond); his claim that the mass blocks are the base of this case (it's more about misuse of power, selective enforcement and leniency to bullying); and more.

As of his suggestion to an appeal process - like you rightfully pointed out, a local double-poll to release each of the 59 blockees individually might be setting an impassable bar. I'd like to add that it will create a huge burden on the community - who, very much like the blockees, would prefer to spend their precious time on writing an encyclopedia and not on endless public trials. Also, Yuri's notion that the norms in hewiki might be so different than Meta rules that "conduct that merits a lengthy block on hewiki might be viewed as minor elsewhere, and vice versa" is an extremely separatist interpretation of WMF's idea about automonic self-governance for local wiki. I see it as another worrisome sign that hewiki might indeed be drifting away slowly from Wikimedia's core values, as was suggested in the RFC.

But wait - why are we even talking about Yuri? He is not a party in this case, nor is he a representative of hewiki's community or permission holders. Actually, Yuri is known in hewiki as a problematic user, who was blocked countless times, many of which for violating etiquette, the last time being a 6-month block for constantly harassing a user. I think that instead of falling for Yuri's distracting suggestions and false comments we should ask the actual parties of this case to finally respond, and move on to establish the local appeal mechanism which you suggested.

So about that - how do we move forward? As can be seen in several Meta's RFC pages, as well as in this case, the old bureaucrats consistently ignore requests and appeals, even if they're tagged. I'm certain that this is because they're super busy and not an intentional avoidance tactic, but the result is the same: matters don't get handked and problems don't get solved. So my question to you is: how can we be proactive and start implementing the solution you suggested? Thanks, איתמראשפר (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this matter. I appreciate the effort required to review information in Hebrew. I see that there has been limited discussion regarding the establishment of a local appeals committee. I would like to propose considering an appeals mechanism that operates independently from current decision-makers.

Currently, it appears challenging for editors with opinions that are different than the current admins opinions to gain administrative permissions. Additionally, most existing administrators were active during the controversial blocking period and were involved in those decisions. The current bureaucrats also held administrative roles at that time and participated in the decision-making process.

Given these circumstances, I believe it would be beneficial to establish a permanent, independent appeals committee for Hebrew Wikipedia. This would provide a fair review process for disputed administrative actions.

I am thinking of raising a proposal on the issue of establishing a permanet appeals committee for hewiki. Do you think this would be a constructive step forward? אמא של (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Right now I don't have any credible allegations of systemic failures when it comes to appeals. So I don't think this would be something the U4C would setup so it would need to be something that gains consensus on hewiki. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. First, a brief response to Itamar’s remarks:

• Legitimacy of the blocks – Once the committee found that the June 2024 mass-blocks were not politically motivated, it follows that they were imposed for a legitimate reason. From here, the only open question is whether each individual block meets the evidentiary standard.
• “Where did we claim hewiki is run by a nationalist cabal?” – You can’t be serious. The RFC you and your colleagues filed opens with:

  “This document intends to show... that hewiki has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies...”

  Months were spent promoting that narrative on meta, now you step away from it. If the claim is withdrawn, an explicit apology on meta would help repair the reputational damage done to hewiki.
• Local consensus – I never said every block enjoys unanimous support. I wrote that three U4C members who do not edit hewiki could “unintentionally undercut local consensus.” Some blocks, yours among them, enjoy broad backing. Reversing those by editors outside the hewiki project is not a legitimate action in my opinion.
• “Countless volunteer hours” – That includes (a) hewiki editors who invested time refuting the RFC, both publicly and privately, and (b) the committee’s own effort in reviewing a very long complaint.
• Personal attacks on my block history – First, I am cited (by username) in several links within your RFC, so pretending I am a random by-stander is inaccurate. Second, dismissing my points because I was blocked is pure ad hominem. Third, it is ironic that someone deemed a troll on hewiki is now urging others to ignore me because I was blocked “too many times.” Many of those blocks were for criticising the very administrators you accuse, which rather undercuts the “friends with the bureaucrats” theory.

Barkeep49, please keep in mind that many of the blocked users had serious conduct issues long before the canvassing was discovered. Several should probably have been sanctioned earlier. That is what I meant when I wrote that “a lengthy block on hewiki might be viewed as minor elsewhere, and vice-versa.”

Bottom line: hewiki, like all Wikipedia projects, is built on community self-governance. If the U4C believes a particular appeal is justified, present the rationale on hewiki and let the community decide. Having three non-hewiki U4C members override local governance, after you have already ruled out systemic failure, strikes me as the wrong action to take. Yuri (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for for the clarifying "Several should probably have been sanctioned earlier. That is what I meant when I wrote that “a lengthy block on hewiki might be viewed as minor elsewhere, and vice-versa.”" I had not thought about the scenario where the canvassing issue spurred action that perhaps should have been done earlier. It does strike me that some mechanism to account for that in the process would be useful. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I genuinely apologize for having to refute Yuri's baseless claims once again. A lie doesn't become truth when repeated over and over, but it might start to sound reasonable, or the listener might get tired of the whole affair. So I'll try to be as brief and as factual as I can:

• Yuri keeps claiming that the committee found the mass blocks to be unpolitical, although the decision doesn't say that, it just says that you found no systemic failure. I would love to get either a simple confirmation or refutation about this point: did the committee reach any concrete decision about the massive blocks' relation to Israeli (or to internal hewiki) politics? If so - what is that decision? and what evidence is it based on?
• Yuri insists that the RFC describes a "nationalist cabal", but this is a glorious straw man argument. A cabal is a secret society of ill meaning villains who conspire to control society or to sabotage a functioning institution - essentially, it's exactly what Yuri is accusing me and the other blockees of being. But the RFC doesn't claim this at all, nor does this U4C case! The groups of nationalists, many of them religious orthodox, who control hewiki don't have to be a coordinated cabal that meets in smoke-filled rooms - it can be, and probably is, a bunch of ideological zealots who are like-minded not because of coordination but because that's how ideological zealots tend to be. Israeli nationalists do tend to believe that any information that doesn't justify their narrative is a form of antisemism and an existential threat, so they will treat editors who add information about the Nakba or about messacres performed by the Israeli army as traitors who should be eliminated - even if the data is backed by reliable sources. Just last week I've whitnessed a bunch of hewiki editors claim that the NYT, Le-Monde, Channel 4 News and ALL UN AGENCIES are biased anti-Israeli sources that cannot be trusted! This is not a coordinated "cabal", but it IS a like-minded, highly ideological, very motivate group of editors - most of them have autopatrol permission, and some are admins who give autopatrol to like-minded editors and prevent this permission from users who don't adhere to the Zionist narrative. It IS a systemic failure, even without the "underground cabal" poetic imagery.
• Yuri claims, as usual with no evidence, that some blocks, including my own, are widely supported. Did he run any survey? Did he perform any research? Does he have any EVIDENCE for these claims? No, but it costs nothing to make bold claims. Just regarding my own block and declaration as troll, I can show numerous e-mails of support I received from veteran editors after my block, as well as a support message which was erased from my talk page(!) and a clear statement by the editor who brought about my troll declaration that we have come to good terms long ago, after mutual apologies. But of course Yuri is so determined to paint me as a bad guy, that he won't bother to check the facts, and just throw as much mud as he can, hoping that something will stick.
• Yuri's claims about "a local cocsensus which shouldn't be undone by outsiders" is one of his weakest arguments. Outsiders have a better view BY DEFINITION. They're not involved, they have a fresh POV which is not tainted by personal history or prejudice, and they're not bound to personal relations and old accounts. This is exactly what scares Yuri: an unbiased, unaffiliated, neutral POV. This is exactly why we turned to the committee. Yuri's claim that there's "a local concensus" is yet to be proven, as so far all we have is Yuri's word for it (and remember that do far he has never attached any link to support his claims)
• "Countless vulinteer hours" - I do hope and belive that the committee isn't hiding anything from Wikimedia community, and that any private correspondants were encouraged to present their case publicly and transparently. If there was indeed any private corresondance, like Yuri claims, I do hope that any accusations or evidence presented in there were shown to the accused party, and that this party was given a fair chance to respond. If this is NOT the case, then the situation might be graver than I thought.
• About Yuri's blocks - as he now forced me to count them - out of 69 block/release log entries, at least 10 blocks are for violating the rules of conduct, and many others are referenced to his talk page, where he is constantly being reminded about obeying the rules, not attacking fellow editors, etc. On the other hand, if we're to take his claim that many of his blocks were assigned for "criticizing the bureaucrats", it will only strengthen our claim that the bureaucrats, old as new, cling to their power and respond badly to criticism - again, this is exactly our claim, and exactly why we think that an intervention to hewiki is much needed.
• Yuri claims that "many of the blocked users had serious conduct issues long before the canvassing was discovered" - but as the table we attached to the RFC shows, most blocked users had a tenure of merely a few months. Is that long enough to be described as "long before the canvassing"? Or is it another rhetorical trick? BTW did Yuri ever proved that that "canvassing" ever took place?

Bottom Line, it's true that hewiki, like all other wiki projects, should have self-goverenmence. But it's also true that self-goverenmence is not more important than neutral POV, reliable sources, critical thinking and unbiased narratives. If hewiki is indeed, as I feel it is, drifting away from WMF core values in the name of self-governmece, then someone should probably bring it back to the right tracks. With respect, איתמראשפר (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

A lot here, only some of which requires a response for me.

• Re:"Yuri keeps claiming that the committee found the mass blocks to be unpolitical, although the decision doesn't say that, it just says that you found no systemic failure." The committee has written "The blocks did not target any particular side politically but were instead based on the evidence the crats had." For me the evidence shared against some editors was strong and some editors was weaker, but this did not correlate to left/right.
• The U4C has explicitly not ruled out systemic failure: "The U4C... may still find there were systemic failures to enforce the UCoC". We have merely stated that the blocks were not a systemic failure.
• The UCoC enforcement guidelines and the U4C charter require that the UCoC respect local enforcement. However, speaking only for myself, I am concerned that hewiki does not capacity to adequately handle appeals of the blocks. And those documents do give us some authority around appeals.
• One reason I am concerned about hewiki handling appeals is because of the limited number of hewiki people who are able to see all the evidence. The U4C has communicated privately about that evidence with appropriate people.

The U4C is a bit stuck on a procedural question about our next step. We have a meeting tomorrow where I hope that we will reach decision on that and that we will have a further update shortly after that decision is made. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, could you please clarify two points:

• You note that the U4C “may still find there were systemic failures to enforce the UCoC.” Could you specify which allegations remain under review as possible systemic issues?
• You mention concern that only a “limited number of hewiki people who are able to see all the evidence” and that this affects the ability of hewiki to adequately handle appeals:

1. Approximately how many hewiki editors currently have knowledge and access to all the evidence?
2. Do you believe that shifting the final decision to three U4C members would meaningfully change the fact that only a small number of people are privy to the full evidence? Yuri (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Barkeep49, for your honest replies. I don't know what evidence the bureaucrats had against me, as I was tried and convicted without being told what I'm accused of or being shown the evidence against me - a bit of a securitate-vibe, I must say, which isn't surprising if you've heard of the new bureaucrats' little game of interrogating editors under implied threats and demanding them to diaclose screen shots from their private e-mails and WhatsApp conversations. Does the committee find that kind of conduct acceptable? Indeed, I saw some alleged "WhatsApp screen shots", which were posted anonymously in some online forum, and show what appears to be a canvassing message sent by me in a WhatsApp group. I don't know where these came from or how they were fabricated, but the interesting thing is that more screen shots were published in the same forum, with incriminating evidence against the admins Hyden, Neriah and Dagesn, the ultra-right leaning editor Aizenr, and a former bureaucrat (who is mentioned only by title) - but not one of them was sanctioned in any way. To my eyes it looks like fellow permission holders and ultra nationalist editors are receiving far better treatment than veteran left leaning editors like me and other veteran editors who were blocked around my block (as I've shown, the relatively new blockees were split among left and right, but all veteran and experienced blockees were left leaning liberals). Does the committee regard this as politically unbiased conduct? Thanks, איתמראשפר (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, as you saw in my former posts, I was with you and with the other U4C members, and was sad when I did not vote. Luckily, the voting results were good.

As I have already written, I was not Dorian. As much as I can see, they do great editing. My edits were also quite good. You talked about the blocks, and did not mention me. My block has been done more than two months after a CU, which was initiated by a troll (Sasson). Barak a wrote very clearly that it was a troll, as I have linked. Do you deal with it? Have you seen my CU log? _Louvre|Talk 21:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, the position of this reply affirmed my words about the other petitioners. They replied to you ("Thank you, Barkeep49, for your honest replies") but placed it in the wrong place. They could do it after your text or after my text, but did not. Therefore, I removed my former text about them and about Glickman. It is kept in the history, and you could find the connection: They were chased by Yuri, like Glickman who was chased by Netanyahu. Well, it became their own issue due to their behavior, and I dealt solely with my case. _Louvre|Talk 01:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi U4C members,

TheStriker, a He WP CU, identified עורך גיימינג as לארי לארי לארט, האיש החזק בקרקס 4, האיש החזק בקרקס 2, המשתמש הכי גבר, פלנקטון, ספוג בוב, עידן 240, סנדי 8299, פרנקלין קלינקלין, המנהל ג'ק, "ujsndpsndksn292939", המשתמש החזק בקרקס 5, מר סקויד, האיש החזק בקרקס 3, האיש החזק בקרקס, ג'ון 200, סיגמא טיולט, אוצלי גוצלי, ליעד 298, אור 965, משתמש 138 and יונתן 34. Users 2–23 vandalized the He WP and user 1 (עורך גיימינג) undid their vandalism. All of them were the same person.

The CU took less than a week, and definitely did not last more than two months, like my CU which was "reported" by a declared troll, as Barak a determined.

The He WP bureaucrats did not respond, although TheStriker tagged them. An He WP admin blocked the socks and the troll, but did not change the page of עורך גיימינג to a troll page.

Funcs declared Dorian as a troll by the request of an admin, and I appear on the user page of Dorian in the He WP as a troll, although I have never vandalized any article.

Here I repeat what ביקורת, who was a He WP bureaucrat, wrote this week in the He WP village pump:

אני אברך על כל מי שימצא את הדרך לחזור כעורך תורם, לא מזוהה פוליטית, לא "בצד הזה" ולא "בצד הזה". אם ויקיפדיה חשובה לכם, בואו ותכתבו אנציקלופדיה. את הפוליטיקה תשאירו לרחובות

and

הדבר היחיד שאפשר לדרוש הוא אי-הזדהות פוליטית/ערכית (מצדי גם במרחבי שיחה, יש מספיק פורומים כדי לדון בהם מה "לדעתי" נכון פוליטית או ערכית) ועיסוק משותף בכתיבה אנציקלופדית

I did not edit controversial articles in the He WP, but created new articles about Brigitte Bardot films!

Here I add that Pixie.ca and Hila Livne accused ביקורת of calling He Wikipedians "מופרעים". I am puzzled if ביקורת sees me as a "מופרע". _Louvre|Talk 20:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi U4C,

I have replaced my signature. My account was not compromised.

The admin ניב supported declaring Dorian as a troll. As a result, I am also a "declared troll".

Today אסף השני requested blocking Gilgamesh due to making two edit wars, but ניב replied that he was involved with Gilgamesh. ניב did not have any edit warring with Gilgamesh, therefore they were not involved. They have just met. Meeting a wikipedian does not neutralize the admin. David Shay met Dorian at least three times as published, and photographed their interpreter, but blocked Dorian from their talk page due to an application of a user who chased Dorian, and has recently been blocked for a month due to this chase.

As a result, an additional He Wikipedian warned ניב.

Concerning Gilgamesh, they supported outing of Dorian. The declared troll Sasson was blocked by גארפילד at a request of Gilgamesh, and it was fine because it was a troll. The problem was that Gilgamesh insisted on revealing Dorian, although Dorian definitely was not Sasson. Louvre★Talk 16:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Sofiblum affirmed that ביקורת wrote: "disturbed", User:Yuri affirmed that ביקורת wrote: "troublemakers", User:איתמראשפר affirmed that it was: "deranged", and Chat GPT suggested: "crazies". It does not matter if the word was so or so. A Wikipedian is not expected to write such a word about other Wikipedians.

My point was that nobody took ביקורת seriously. Therefore Barak did block me, although I was a brand new user, and although ביקורת prohibited blocking new users who contributed to the He WP. Barak and all the other admins who were involved, did not take ביקורת seriously. Louvre★Talk 01:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yuri canvassed ביקורת and redirected them to this case, but ביקורת replied: אני לא יכול להתייחס להשמצות שנעשות 'מחוץ לוויקיפדיה העברית'. אני לא אגרר למשחק הזה

Yuri is not the advocate of ביקורת, and does not have any mandate to reply instead of ביקורת. Therefore, the rule is that U4C is allowed to make a decision without hearing ביקורת.

It was the reason why Dorian was blocked in the He WP. The troll Sasson made an RFC in the He WP against Dorian. Due to this RFC, ביקורת wrote to Dorian there: "If you discuss any user in the He WP, you will be blocked". Dorian wrote it in their first RFC in Meta.

Afterwards, Sasson made a new RFC against Dorian in the He WP, with another username. None of these users are editing the He WP these days.

The He WP bureaucrat Eran asked Dorian to reply, but Dorian didn't, because ביקורת prohibited them. As a result, Dorian were blocked from the He WP. Dorian wrote it in an additional RFC, but were globally locked on the same day.

When ביקורת do not reply here to the accusations, the same rule applies to ביקורת. Louvre★Talk 04:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Appeals:

• I'm glad to see this proposal, it would have been better if it had been raised sooner. The behavior of the previous bureaucrats at the Hebrew Wikipedia exceeded all norms. They allowed themselves to act without any authority. They didn't listen to advices, and those who dared to criticize them, they responded aggressively. I have been an editor on the Hebrew Wikipedia since 2009, I was an administrator for 8 years. There have never been bureaucrats who acted like them. Unfortunately, the 2 newly elected bureaucrats are very afraid to correct what has been done. They have unblocked very few editors. It is time to unblock the many blocks that have been made indefinitely without real justification. Thank you Hanay (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I would add two statements from today.

Hanay wrote:

אני מבינה שקשה לך עם ההחלטה הזאת של הקרן (U4C, Louvre), ואתה מנסה להגן על הפעולות שלך ושל גארפילד, אבל יש מקרים שבהם עדיף לא להגיב

ביקורת replied:

אני מגן בצדק ובזכות על שמי הטוב, תרמתי לאתר הזה מספיק זמן מחיי בשביל לצפות למינימום הזה שלא אמצא מדי כמה ימים הכפשות מהסוג שעולה פה ומבלי לתייג אותי

My reply to ביקורת is simple: ביקורת is not blocked nor restricted from any namespace in the He WP. Louvre★Talk 21:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, today ארז האורז wrote: אנחנו מצרפים כאן קובץ של גוגל פורמס, שבו ניתן יהיה להגיש ערעור מסודר. לאחר שהגשתם ערעור, כתבו בדף שיחתכם שהגשתם ערעור, ותייגו אותנו ואת הבודקים. בהתאם לכללים של מטא, נשתדל להחזיר תשובה תוך 30 ימים. התשובה תתקבל בדף השיחה של המשתמש

I do not use any kind of Google forms, due to privacy issues.

I am blocked on my talk page in the He WP.

Dorian is blocked on their talk page there.

35 of May is also blocked on their talk page there. May and I are "declared" socks of Dorian, whom Funcs "declared" as a "troll" in February 2025, although Dorian has not written in the He WP since April 2024. No "outing" was shown. On the other hand, Gilgamesh made an outing to Dorian, as I have already written.

My CU took more than two months. This week PurpleBuffalo checked אני בובת קש and identified it as פלנקטון in 20 minutes.

May did not pass any CU (no CU has been done upon them).

Barkeep49, have you seen May and my CU logs?

What are the "rules of Meta"? The rules were of U4C, not of Meta. I see here a contempt of U4C.

If I appealed, I would do it by an email, tagging in Meta, because I cannot do anything in the He WP. Louvre★Talk 13:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, Funcs did not tag Sofiblum nor La Nave Partirà nor me. Louvre★Talk 18:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw they called it "meta rules". The U4C is a cross-project body but we currently do our work on meta (we've talked about how/if it would be possible to do work on local wikis). I am not bothered by that label and for me the important thing is the work they've done to make that motion a reality. I understand your concerns about Google; let's revisit that question after the form comes out. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49 for your reply.

The Google form has already gone out. Funcs said that Sasson filed the form. I wrote it here.

I also have not been tagged nor La Nave. I am going to agree with La Nave (shortly, she was horrified by the He WP. If I was wrong, she was welcome to correct me. I was horrified, either). Louvre★Talk 23:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Funcs updated that NIVAR appealed. It was Sasson. It used uppercase like a name of another user, with whom it has been involved since 2018. Louvre★Talk 17:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Funcs declared Dorian as a "troll".

The result was that I became a "troll" as well.

Today Funcs wrote in the village pump: די כבר, את באמת גורמת לי לרצות לקפוץ מהחלון, את מוציאה אותי מהכלים והאופן שבו את כותבת לא מכבד, מטריד בצורה קיצונית, ומשפיל

Funcs wrote it because she was asked to delete the word "מופרעים" which ביקורת wrote twice in the village pump.

Can Funcs declare Dorian as a troll?

I asked Dorian why Funcs declared them, and their reply was that they requested Funcs to delete a text which the troll Sasson copied from the He WP City Square to the talk page of Dorian, when they were globally locked and could not delete it.

Here is the reply: זה לא נחשב הכרזה כטרול. הנושא אפילו לא התברר שם. לא אני ולא איתמר לא הספקנו להגיב. זו סתם יריה מהמותן של גארפילד. אולי כדאי שתקרא את מה שכתבה לה נוה על שיטת החסימה של גארפילד. זה ממש פה מתחת

Therefore, Dorian is definitely not a troll, and I neither. The troll of the He WP is Sasson, not Dorian. Louvre★Talk 22:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Dorian only.
Barkeep49, you are currently conversing with a user who has stalked and harassed the community both on-site and off-site, and somehow evaded being "declared a troll" on Hebrew Wikipedia (equivalent to indefinite blocking with no way back on other wikis). He was globally blocked for a certain period and was unblocked for unclear reasons. Since then, he has created multiple sockpuppets and through them continued to circumvent his block on hewiki, while attempting to out several users (including some CUs, bureaucrats, administrators, and others). Since being declared a troll by Funcs, he frequently harasses here, mainly through unblock requests and requests to block another troll, "Sasson," whose hundreds of hidden revisions of profanity and curses directed at other veteran users can be found throughout hewiki.
There is no point in allowing him to appeal his block. The CUs and bureaucrats are aware of the trouble he has caused and will not allow him to return. And while we're discussing him, it would be appropriate for the U4C to investigate him as well and ensure his permanent removal from all Wikimedia projects.
I can provide additional information about him via email and direct you to people he has harmed off-site. Neriah - 💬 - 08:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The claims were not valid. I am not Dorian, and was blocked on 29 December 2024. I wrote articles about Brigitte Bardot films, and did not harass anyone. The troll Sasson harassed me and requested my CU without any reason, and Barak a, a CU, confirmed that it was the troll which chased Dorian. The CU took more than two months, and I asked Barkeep49 at least twice for its log, but got no reply.

Blocking me was clearly against the written policy of ביקורת, and he repeated it two weeks ago: אני אברך על כל מי שימצא את הדרך לחזור כעורך תורם, לא מזוהה פוליטית, לא "בצד הזה" ולא "בצד הזה". אם ויקיפדיה חשובה לכם, בואו ותכתבו אנציקלופדיה. את הפוליטיקה תשאירו לרחובות

I have already deleted all my text here and on the case page, but the U4C requested me to return it, and asked for it also on my talk page. Everything was visible and supported with full diffs.

I did not see here any request of Dorian to unblock them. They did not write here at all, but edited the mainspace of different projects.

The text above is full of hate speech and does not have to remain here. Funcs, who declared Dorian, wrote yesterday that she wanted to jump out of the window after being asked to delete the words "מופרעים". It was a personal behavior, just like the entire text above. I have already written that I was scared like La Nave. They insisted on a global lock for stopping the clear evidence of the He WP conduct, which Dorian wrote in his RFC. Two other He WP admins supported blocking of this case filers. Louvre★Talk 14:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Tell me, don't you find it strange to refer to yourself in the third person? You are Dorian, as the CU findings clearly indicate. There's really no point in denying it.
I won't be engaging with you further here. I know very well what the consequences of that are, based on the last time we argued - personal harassment and (admittedly rather desperate) attempts at outing me. To be honest, I mostly found it amusing - especially how far off you were from identifying who I actually am. Not everyone named "Neriah" living in Asia is me...
But regardless, I’m not interested in allowing your repeated harassment attempts to continue. Neriah - 💬 - 15:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And one last thing, regarding the claim "They insisted on a global lock for stopping the clear evidence of the He WP conduct", good to hear. I did not support a global lock for any user, except for Dorian and his sockpuppets - who were blocked unrelated to the political events, and for a different reason. Neriah - 💬 - 15:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello U4C members, they harass me by repeatedly requesting my block. It is not the room for it. I am not Dorian. A CU which lasts more than two months and is based upon a request of a troll, is not valid.

Please delete their text here. Yesterday AddMore-III requested on the He WP village pump to block a case filer, and their text was deleted. Louvre★Talk 15:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Why was my comment removed? If it's not in the right place, you can move it, not delete it.

I wrote: "I'm glad to see this proposal, it would have been better if it had been raised sooner. The behavior of the previous bureaucrats at the Hebrew Wikipedia exceeded all norms. They allowed themselves to act without any authority. They didn't listen to advices, and those who dared to criticize them, they responded aggressively. I have been an editor on the Hebrew Wikipedia since 2009, I was an administrator for 8 years. There have never been bureaucrats who acted like them. Unfortunately, the 2 newly elected bureaucrats are very afraid to correct what has been done. They have unblocked very few editors. It is time to unblock the many blocks that have been made indefinitely without real justification. Thank you Hanay (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)"

User:BRPever delete it. See [2] and wrote: that section is for U4C voting. Ok, but why delete it? you can move it to the wright section Hanay (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You are free to create your own section (if not already) and copy it there from the history. I would have no way of knowing if your vote was intended as a comment or vote if you keep it in a section where U4C members are meant to present their vote. Nor did I think it was a good idea to leave it there which would cause only confusion. BRP ^ever 14:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Next stage

With the passing of the motion today, the U4C is ready to move on to a new stage even as I anticipate we will start to receive appeals. I would welcome input from community members about what we should work on next to examine the issues raised in this filing. My current thinking is we will pass 1-3 more motions before concluding this case; a motion may include findings of facts (as our first motion did), perform an action (as our 2nd motion did), or do both. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I reply individually, not generally.

Today AddMore-III wrote in the He WP village pump: אני מתחלחל ומתלהלה [...] הצרות כאן נובעות בחלקן הגדול מכך שמועדון הדיונים העקרים וההצהרות המופרכות המכונה "חיי הקהילה" ו"דפי השיחה" קיבל חיים משלו, וקצרה יד בעלי התפקידים מלאכוף כתיבה אנציקלופדית

They were mentioned in the case three times, but did not reply here even once. So they wrote today that the community, which they called מועדון הדיונים העקרים וההצהרות המופרכות, ruined the He WP. The community governed the project, not AddMore-III. Louvre★Talk 09:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The Foundation TV series' third season began on 11 July 2025, and I read an article which was expanded by Dorian during 17–21 January 2025. Immediately, on 20 January 2025, the troll Sasson registered the He WP as קיו and vandalized this article with mass deletions, false edit summaries, and false templates. Sasson vandalized with mass deletions also the Bad Batch as טאג and did it again. טאג and קיו added prizes to the two different series: 1, 2. It was clear that it was the same person.

Furthermore, טאג ceased editing on 2 September 2024 and קיו ceased editing on 25 February 2025. Instead of טאג, came מינט who registered on 14 April 2025, but ceased editing on the same day (one-day user).

Dorian wrote to ארז האורז about an additional vandalism of the article Moshe Shem Tov, but got no reply.

Barak a confirmed on the He WP CU page that Sasson chased Dorian. The first RFC of Dorian dealt with the endless Sasson's socks, but the He WP did not solve it. The articles remained vandalized. Louvre★Talk 22:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: My suggestion for the next motion is to check the issue of selective enforcement of the code of conduct in hewiki. This issue is detailed under section 2 in the case request we submitted, under the heading "Harassment". We attached examples of code of conduct violations by certain editors that are not handled or are handled in a minor way, while regarding other editors there is strict and disproportionate treatment. We particularly mentioned the User:Gilgamesh and User:AddMore-III, but detailed many additional examples. If you need more information to clarify the point from our side, we would of course be happy to provide more explanations or examples. Thank you Sofiblum (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Google forms

Hello U4C members,
I have just seen this clip. I apologize that it talks in Hebrew.
In general, it says that since August 14, 2025, Google forms are not valid in any way.
I verified it here. I guess it will be easier to read it instead of hearing a clip in Hebrew.
I would add that Funcs launched a writing contest on the He WP and used a Google form for this contest as well. Louvre★Talk 01:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It goes stranger. ☹️

Funcs wanted to participate in the contest which she launched.

Pixie suggested Funcs making a sock.

Another user replied that Funcs would be identified, but Pixie replied that there were a lot of socks on the He WP who were not new users (my prominence, Louvre).

Shannen, an ex-admin, wrote that it was against the rules.

Pixie replied that she trusted Funcs.

Pixie and Funcs are writing from the springboard.

On the other hand, I am not a sock. Barkeep49 is a checkuser, admin, bureaucrat and oversight. They have never said that I was a sock, although I asked them clearly about it, at least twice. Louvre★Talk 10:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

An appeal

Greetings U4C and Barkeep49,

Many thanks for the rule which Barkeep49 wrote yesterday.

Following it, I appealed here.

I would like also to thank Hanay for the support on the Check User page. אוקספורד wrote there: "אינני חדש ואין בכך חשד", "אני מכיר את "מאי" משני אתרי אינטרנט".

The fake statement: "I know May from two websites" was a lie and a bad attempt to make an outing. "Two websites" are not Wikipedia, and are not concerned with writing articles. There was no User:35 of May on other websites. On YouTube there is User 35. In Themoviedb.org there is May 35.

Sincerely, 35 of May (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it, Hebrew Wikipedia does normally allow for appeals of blocks. The circumstances around the mass blocks made things different which is why we created a new mechanism for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, you may see: "cannot edit own talk page". You may also see mine. Additionally, I have made zero edits on the En WP. They claimed: "You nominated articles which I wrote", and pinged here EPIC for globally lock me (13:32, 25 March 2025), but no CU has been submitted. You might know it as a CU.

יונה בנדלאק also requested to block me due to "outing" which did not exist, but disappeared after I had asked him about an article's talk page on the He WP. I asked Dorian about it, but יונה ghosted also there. Here is the request which Dorian wrote: אני מבקש למחוק אאוטינג מדף השיחה של הערך. כאן צירפתי תדפיס מדף השיחה עם האאוטינג שסימנתי (1 March 2025).

יונה also did not reply Dorian why my CU took more than two months, although יונה was a CU, and supported clean new users, as they wrote on the He WP village pump as well as ביקורת. Louvre★Talk 04:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hewiki bureaucrat shamelessly canvassing

Dear U4C Committee, please note this edit, in which the hewiki bureacrat Erez Ha'Orez, who is a party in this U4C case, performs shameless canvassing in an attempt to bring as many hewiki editors as possible to vote for Israeli photographs in Wikicommons' Picture of the Year contest. He literally links to the contest, points to specific pictures, and asks editors to vote for them, and this is done in the village pump, for all eyes to see.

This bureaucrat has refused for many months, until he was forced to do it by this committee, to reexamine the mass block of dozens of editors for alleged canvassing - but he has no shame to blatantly canvas himself, where he thinks only Hebrew editors are watching. When I pointed this out in the discussion, and tagged Barkeep49, Erez quickly erased that remark and hid it (see the previous versions page, Sept. 28 at 23:31 UTC+2).

Erez has recently denied my local appeal about my own permanent block, with baseless excuses and much hand waving, but it seems that the real reason why he insists on keeping me blocked forever is diffetent: I've become known as a critic of the way hewiki is run, and my block allows him to erase any comment that I make, even (or especially) when I fulfill my Wikipedian obligation to report his canvassing attempts, or selective enforcement and abuse of power by other admins. This is just like the previous bureaucrats behaved: criticism is immediately erased, and the critic is described as a threat to Hebrew Wikipedia.

Like other victims of the mass blockings, I recently mailed the committee an appeal about my case. When reviewing these appeals, please keep in mind this event, which demonstrates what we're dealing with: a Wikipedia project whose leadership holds double standards, and won't shy away from violating the same rules that it have accused others of, or blocked others for. In actuality, this event is just another example of the severe problems described in the detailed RFC document.

I understand that Barkeep49 is quite busy, so I'm tagging the rest of the committee: Ajraddatz, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, BRPever, Civvì and Luke081515. Please examine this event closely, even though it might require some tedious automatic translation of web pages. Thank you, IthamarEshpar איתמראשפר (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself and not for any other member of the U4C, canvassing is not a UCoC violation and I do not consider a community member attempting to support other community members in the Picture of the Year contest an Abuse of power, privilege, or influence as defined by the UCoC. As for the appeal - we haven't formally acknowledged it yet because no one has completed the first step of the process as outlined by the motion. I had attempted to leave a message about this on your user talk but was unable to do so due to hewiki abuse filters. I have proposed a motion internally to address this in the future (or more accurately, restarted a discussion we'd had in January). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I am always glad to read your words, because your contribution to the Hebrew community is valuable.

I have two points, which might be written in two days.

I made my appeal here, on my talk page and directly. If my talk page in the He WP is blocked to the U4C, it is possible to address me directly or here. Thank you, Louvre★Talk 20:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, canvassing is not a UCoC violation, but it is a serius violation of Wikipedia rules and principles, and when it's done by someone who regularly blocks others for the very same violation - it's a double standard, or at least very questionable conduct. Some may find it legit to publicly call editors to vote for a specific photo because of the national identity of the photographer, others may find it flawed, but the fact remains that Erez had banned users permanently for alegedly doing very similar actions - with a subtle difference: Erez never presented any evidence that his allegations are even true, while his blatant canvassing for the best photo contest is done in the open, for all eyes to see.

Regarding the appeal, I didn't understand Barkeep49's claim that it wasn't acknowledged yet "because no one has completed the process as outlinesd by the motion". As I understand it, the process is composed of two stages: first, local appeals will be published and examined by the local bureaucrats, and then, if someone's local appeal is denied, they may appeal to the U4C commitee. According to hewiki's special local appeals page, 5 out of 21 appeals were accepted and the others were denied - so the first stage of the process was obviously executed and is now completed. What needs to happen now in order to begin the next stage? I have sent the committee my appeal by e-mail, and I saw that at least one appeal was acknowledged by Barkeep49 - so obviously stage two has begun. What's stopping you from acknowledging my appeal and examining my, and Ami Leer's, cases?? The motion was approved almost three months ago, Ami Leer's appeal was acknowledged almost two months ago, and my own appeal was sent to you alomst a month ago, on Sept. 18. As requested, my appeal e-mail included links to my local appeal and to the response I received, so I don't understand what's still missing in order for you to acknowledge it and start the process. Please explain if I missed anything, so I can fix it. Thanks, IthamarEshpar איתמראשפר (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi U4C members,

Here are my two points:

1. A He WP admin asked on the He WP CU page a CU to undo edits of anonymous accounts. Is it possible for me to request admission to a theater from any U4C member?

It could be justified if the admin did not know the anonymous accounts that vandalized the He WP. Is it within the realm of possibility for an admin not to recognize vandalism?

Here I address a verdict which has been given about Yael Melnilk (I hope Dorian will write an article about it). Judge Yechiel Lifshitz said that the Forensic Institute was without a respiratory specialist and contacted the state to find one. Lifshitz argued that the institute needed to locate the expert instead of addressing the state.

2. My first article on the He WP was "Hamas's propaganda network". I was a novice and created "explanation" (הסברה) instead of "propaganda" (תעמולה), keeping NPOV. On 4 September 2025, another admin suggested "propaganda", and it was accepted. Funcs declared Dorian as a "troll" in February 2025, and I was "reported" on the same day.

Why did an admin suggest renaming an article which was created by a "troll" (me), and why did it take 7 days, like any other discussion of renaming an article created by a respected Wikipedian?

The inability to identify vandalism as described on my first point, has thrown the troll Sasson to the He WP front stage, and it has done it also in this article. Yes, it has vanished after vandalizing like all its other socks. Writing "צפריר" instead of "Tzafrir" showed its deep knowledge in the He WP as well as its user name (a Death Eater's name). I was a novice when I wrote the article, and did not cite Amir Bohbot, who definitely wrote: במערכת הביטחון לא מקלים ראש בכלל בעוצמה ובאיכות הפעילות של אנשי ההסברה והדוברות בחמאס, and his source appeared eight times on the article. Instead of vandalizing Bohbot's words, the He WP could cite Bohbot for the ninth time, but a troll was a troll, and vandalism was vandalism. Louvre★Talk 19:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello U4C Members,

The rule on the He WP is that there are no rules. Every admin and bureaucrat acts as they please. In addition, there is no prevention of vandalism committed by trolls.

1. Isr135 was identified in a CU as a sock of כוכב קטן and מביע עניין, both of whom were blocked. I was the one who requested the CU of כוכב קטן, and he was identified as מביע עניין.
   ביקורת responded when he was a bureaucrat, asking why כוכב קטן had been blocked.
2. After Isr135 was identified and was blocked, he wrote from an anonymous account on Funcs' talk page in the He WP, and she engaged in the discussion with him – even though she was a bureaucrat and even though a blocked user was still blocked and could not evade the block by writing from an anonymous account.
3. זור was also blocked by Barak. However, he asked on his talk page to restore an edit made in the "Ballroom dance" article. When he received no response from patrollers, he tagged admin דוד שי, who formerly had been a bureaucrat and was considered the most senior editor on He WP. דוד שי responded to the tag and made an edit in "Ballroom dance". He also replied on זור’s talk page to let him know he had made the edit, even though זור was blocked and no edits should be made at his request. Normally, when another user makes edits on behalf of זור, that user is deemed his sock. Despite דוד שי editing on behalf of זור ,זור was not satisfied and asked דוד שי to completely revert the edit he disliked, even though he was blocked for two months. זור also demanded the deletion of a photo of Brigitte Bardot that I had uploaded to He WP, and asked to delete 35 of May's user page, believing that 35 of May was Dorian.
4. In The City Square, the troll Sasson, acting anonymously, pursued The contentor, claiming that The contentor had been CU on En WP on July 29, 2022, and identified as a sock of a user who edited for pay on He WP. As a result, a registered user requested that a CU be made, but by October 7, 2025 – over three years after the En WP CU. No results were found in He WP. The accusation against The contentor was that he was voting (paid editors are not allowed to vote), but The contentor clarified that he did not participate in votes. Afterwards he was asked by another registered user about the results in the En WP, although it was out of scope and raised the temperature around a contributing wikipedian.
5. Sasson also pursued another paid editor, MrEksh, and reverted his paid edit on the Eitan Paz article. That edit was intended to clear Paz's name regarding the Hamas surprise attack at Zikim Beach on October 7. I am aware that understanding Hebrew is difficult, and have attached the source from Kan 11: "מפקד בסיס אשדוד נדרך והקפיץ מהבית מפקד סיירת דבורה ומעלה כוננות של סירת דבורה נוספת בנמל אשדוד וסירת צרעה באשקלון. הוא עשה זאת למרות שכל מערכי המודיעין של חיל הים, אמ"ן, קצין המודיעין של פיקוד דרום וקצין המודיעין של אוגדת עזה, שללו אפשרות לתקיפה בכלל ותקיפה מהים בפרט". According to that source, Paz (מפקד בסיס אשדוד) acted properly, but Sasson deleted it because MrEksh was a paid editor.
6. In summary: a bureaucrat responded to a blocked user who evaded a block through an anonymous account, דוד שי made edits at the request of a user blocked for two months, and Sasson harassed paid editors without justification – resulting in one editor being CU on the basis of a more than three-year-old En WP examination that yielded no results in the He WP.
7. As I wrote earlier, Sasson was the one who harassed me and demanded that I be CU, alleging that I was Dorian, but he provided no evidence. The check lasted over two months, after which Barak deleted my talk page on He WP and all the articles I wrote about Brigitte Bardot films, even though I was never declared a troll. Later, another admin requested that declaration, and Funcs carried it out. From everything I have written earlier about Funcs, her judgment was flawed, as she herself once wrote that she wanted to jump out the window after being asked why she had not deleted text violating the behavioral guidelines.
8. I would also add that there is currently a discussion between Yuri and another user about the lead section of the "Oslo Accords" article on He WP. Yuri accused this user of bias: "זו בדיוק ההגדרה של הטיה". In my opinion, this user is Sasson, who created this new account on July 17, 2023, after אנדרסן was blocked at his own request on July 15, 2023, and then permanently blocked on August 1, 2023, by ביקורת. The connection between אנדרסן's name and this new user's name is obvious. Louvre★Talk 21:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding מיכלאנג'לו who registered today and immediately did mass deletions here and here. It is also Sasson by its user page content: "אני מת על צבי הנינג'ה אז קראתי לעצמי על שם מייקי." Louvre★Talk 21:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Here is an additional vandalism of the troll Sasson. Yesterday, Yair Lapid told Trump at the Knesset about Noya and Carmela Dan, who were murdered at Nir Oz. Sasson deleted it from the article about Lee Dan, and the i.p. was globally blocked until 28 May 2030. Sasson harassed 35 of May, requesting CU (which was not done), and did it also here – in the same way it harassed The contentor, MrEksh and Ovedc here and here. It vandalized Lee Dan also here, and this i.p. was globally blocked until 2030 either. Louvre★Talk 01:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

1. I address again a violation which דוד שי did after זור pinged them. דוד שי acted in 6 minutes like a real sock of blocked זור.
2. PurpleBuffalo made a "secret" CU against שוליית הקוסם, claiming it was another user, although they were not declared as a troll. Worse than it, PurpleBuffalo pinged the He WP bureaucrats for declaring them. He WP admins and CU chased contributing users who registered following the guidelines which had been made as I had written here, but totally ignored the troll Sasson, that systemically harassed users and vandalised articles, like I had clearly shown here. Louvre★Talk 04:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Bureaucrats conduct

Funcs wrote today in the village pump: אני מתנצלת בפני כל מי שנפגע מהמלטדאון שלי
It was not the first time it happened. She has already written to a He WP Wikipedian, who was liberal, that she wanted to jump from the window.
This time another liberal Wikipedian wrote in the village pump that the liberals were vulnerable in the He WP.
As a result, Funcs wrote:
ראית את הגיהנום שה״עורכים הליברלים״ העבירו את כולנו בשנתיים האחרונות? ראית את עוצמת ההתקפות של הקבוצה הזו על כל דבר שקצת לא מוצא חן בעיניהם? ראית את הצורה הסופר לא נעימה שבה הם מדברים? את האופן שבו הם מתאגדים ביחד ומאשימים כל מי שלא בא להם טוב בעין בדברים שלא היו ולא נבראו? אני עצמי עברתי תקופה מזוויעה ב-10 החודשים הראשונים שלי כבירוקרטית בגלל הקבוצה הזו, ויש פה ויקיפדים שעברו דברים יותר גרועים ממני בגללם. והם לא מתאגדים רק נגד לא ליברלים, אלא נגד כל אדם שהם מחליטים שיש בו משהו שמפריע להם
and:
מה שהוציא אותי מהכלים הפעם היה זה שהצגת את הצד הליברלי כמסכנים וכצד החלש כאן. גם אם היית עושה את אותו הדבר כלפי הצד הימני או כלפי אוהבי הספגטי הייתי מתעצבנת. כי האבסורד שאת מדגימה כאן הוא שהקבוצה הזו כל כך מתקשה להבין נייטרליות, עד שעכשיו היא גם חושבת שהיא החלשה והמותקפת בכל הסיפור. וזו בדיוק הבעיה שהדגמת כל כך יפה – הקבוצה הזו לא יודעת מה נייטרלי, היא לא באה ממניעים אנציקלופדיים, אלא רק כדי לקדם את האג׳נדות שלה

Another He Wikipedian wrote:
אני לא בעד שנתחיל כאן בחילופי האשמות בין המחנות זה לא מועיל, אז אתייחס רק לוויקיפדיה האנגלית, שם הליברלים ממש לא ליברלים
but Funcs replied:
מצחיק שרצית לא לסטות מנושא הדיון ואז הכנסת את הדבר הכי לא קשור
Although the issue of the En WP was known and was reported in the world media.

Afterwards, Funcs redacted her text without specifying any cause and without any edit summary, although she was not allowed to do it. She could only strike it, or ask another admin to redact it.

The result was that Funcs might not declare Dorian as a "troll" and might not declare me either. She was driven by personal reactions and might not make bureaucratic decisions.

PurpleBuffalo replied Funcs: פאנקס, אני כל כך מזדהה עם התגובה שלך. כמי שמגדיר את עצמו כליברלי, אני יכול להעיד שלעניות דעתי אין בין אותה קבוצה שציינת לבין כתיבה אנציקלופדית או טובתה של ויקיפדיה דבר וחצי דבר. אישית, עייפתי כל כך שאני מחזיק כאן בשארית כוחותיי שכמעט תשו בגלל שהמיזם הזה כל כך חשוב לי, אבל אנחנו רגע לפני קריסה מוחלטת, ואין פתרון

PurpleBuffalo blocked 35 of May without any CU, resulting in 35 of May declaration as a "troll", like me. PurpleBuffalo also declined the policy of ביקורת about new users, and urged the bureaucrats to declare another Wikipedian as a troll for contributing as a new user.

ארז האורז supported Funcs in these words:
הדיון הזה יצא מכלל פרופורציות. אי אפשר לחסוך ביקורת שלילית מעורך בוויקיפדיה – זה הפורמט: עורכים מחווים את דעתם על משתמש מסוים וכמה הוא מתאים להיות מפעיל. כמובן שאפשר למתן את הניסוח ולהימנע משימוש בתיאורים מעליבים (בטח כשהם באים ללא צירוף של דוגמאות), אבל אם יש משהו שצריך וכדאי שייאמר, אז אין ברירה אלא להגיד אותו
but also in this:
רק בדיון על אביר המתמטיקה ראיתי שימוש בצורת דיבור מזוויעה: "אלים", "אגרסיבי"... אותם ליברליים שפאנקס טוענת ש"אני עצמי עברתי תקופה מזוויעה ב-10 החודשים הראשונים שלי כבירוקרטית בגלל הקבוצה הזו, ויש פה ויקיפדים שעברו דברים יותר גרועים ממני בגללם", חלק מאותו קולקטיב הוציא את דיבתי בדפי האתר/מטא והעליל עליי שקרים, ולא שמעתי אף גינוי של הדברים האלו בדיעבד

As PurpleBuffalo and ארז האורז supported the text of Funcs, although Funcs apologized (explaining it was her meltdown), they also were not eligible to block 35 of May and declare him and me as trolls. ארז האורז wrote: "We declared two trolls", meaning: 1. Dorian (and me as a consequence, although my CU took more than two months, and see it: Barak a guessed, due to the time that passed, which was less than two months), 2. The other person who registered recently. Louvre★Talk 08:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you please share a link to the rule that says I’m not allowed to hide my comments? If such a rule exists, I wasn’t familiar with it, and I’ll gladly take it into account in the future.

Also, questioning my mental health because you disagree with me does not strengthen your argument and it’s irrelevant to my role as a bureaucrat. Funcs (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you after such a long time we have not talked. Your last comment to me was here. Afterwards, I have not heard from you any longer, although I addressed you at וק:במ (WP:ANI).

Your question about your state is not much relevant, since you have mentioned it, not me. "Meltdown" has a lot of ranges, also music. The clear point was that you replied to me today after you had declared Dorian a "troll". Frankly, if Sasson stands in front of me with any virtual tool, I will not reply to it. It is also the reason why I don't use an anonymous account.

You could solve it by voiding my CU, which took more than two months, but you did not.

To your first question, the rule is here. Louvre★Talk 12:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I deal with myself. Funcs declared Dorian. The result was that I have also been declared, although I have not done anything wrong. My CU was initiated by a troll, as Barak a wrote clearly, and took more than two months. Therefore it was not valid.

Funcs redacted comments of אריה ענבר and ביקורת also without an edit summary. Additionally, she merged two signatures of them and deleted two other signatures, but it seemed that she signed as them, especially when she added "ו" (and).

If I am not wrong, Funcs also wanted to participate a writing contest that she managed. Someone suggested her to participate as a sock.

Resulting from her statement "questioning my mental health" (הודאה שניתנה מרצונו החופשי של המודה נחשבת במערכות משפט רבות (ובכלל זה במערכת המשפט הישראלית) לראיה חזקה מאוד נגד המודה, ומכונה בשל כך מלכת הראיות), her declaration of Dorian was not valid. Therefore, I am not a troll either. I am a real person, like MathKnight, אריה ענבר, Ladypine, Mertaro and אמא של. The troll Sasson is just a collection of different VPN servers from Thailand, the USA, Europe and the rest of the world. It decided to systemically destroy the He WP.

I am not "liberal" nor "right-wing", but wrote encyclopedic articles. Sasson turned the He WP to hell, not the liberals. Jimmy Wales talked about the En WP, not about the liberals in the He WP. אגסי explained it, trying to reduce flames, but Funcs claimed it was irrelevant. Louvre★Talk 04:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

A link was published yesterday in the He WP City Square. It said: לא רק אני חושב שיש בעיות בקהילת ויקיפדיה בישראל. בישיבות הוועד המנהל של עמותת ויקימדיה עלו כמה פעמים בשנים האחרונות התייחסויות לקשיים בקהילת ויקיפדיה. לאחרונה דיווחה המנכ"לית לוועד המנהל שהתקבלה החלטה (נבונה בעיני) לקיים קורסי תקשורת מקרבת ייעודי לבעלי תפקידים בוויקיפדיה העברית

Will the He WP block also this He Wikipedian? Will they block the Wikimedia Israel CEO as well? The En WP tried to block Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, but failed. Louvre★Talk 08:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Dorian was declared by Funcs as a troll due to "outing". It was written on Dorian's He WP user page.

I saw a lot of He WP talk pages with outings against Dorian, but did not see an "outing" made by Dorian.

On the other hand, today a He Wikipedian made an outing against a He WP admin and CU, by linking to an old version of their user page. The outing was intended to decline a comment of the admin, although they wrote as a person, not as an admin.

Funcs wrote her comments as a bureaucrat, not as a person. She wanted to jump from the window because she was a bureaucrat. She passed ten hard months because she was a bureaucrat. She was upset by liberal Wikipedians because she was a bureaucrat.

But the other admin just commented about their non-WP view and today they were doxed.

Therefore, accusing Dorian of making "outing" collapsed either.

Until now there have been 5 collapses:

1. My CU was initiated by a troll.
2. My CU took more than 2 months.
3. The declaration of the bureaucrat was not valid due to her state.
4. Dorian is innocent of making "outings".
5. I was invited by MediaWiki message delivery to an inspiring global virtual gathering: the first Capacity Exchange Translat-a-thon. Dorian was not invited, neither Barak a, who blocked me and deleted my articles, nor ארז האורז who ignored my application on their talk page, but I was. I was invited also to the Capacity Exchange (CapX) platform and the CapX Telegram community chat. I thank the dear U4C and the great Wikimedia community. Louvre★Talk 05:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@לובר: I have trouble understanding what exactly you are claiming here. Are you trying to suggest someone has inappropriate conduct? What are you proposing the U4C to do? dbeef (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Louvre, point 3 is an ad personam argument. These are generally very weak arguments, because they do not adress the issue, where there was a wrong decision. For example, a typical ad-personam-argument is "this guy is a professor, so he is right in this debate", but even professors can be wrong sometimes and even an uneducated person can be right. And accordingly in your claim, one can make a valid declaration in different states. So, do you have another argument why the declaration would not be valid? Ghilt (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi dbeef and Ghilt, the declaration was not valid also due to my points 1–2, 4–5.

Point 3 voids the declaration due to a person's motivation. If a professor is against a student, they have to apply to another professor for a suspension of the student. A lawsuit has been submitted against Bar-Ilan University for suspending a student who wore a niqab. Please notice that Funcs was systemically upset by "liberal" editors, not by right-wing editors.

Furthermore, the declaration has been done due to "outing" which has not been shown. On the other side, a He WP outing has been done against an admin and a CU, but the He WP user was not declared, nor blocked, nor even warned. Not surprisingly, the user was considered as a right-wing.

Repeating point 3: Wikimedia Israel initiated a communication course for role holders in the He WP.

Someone called a reporter "piggy". Words like "piggy" and "hell" seemed similar to me. Louvre★Talk 09:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Re 3 again: States are not a motivation per se, and your example depicts a Conflict of interest, that would be relevant. Ghilt (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Ghilt for the useful correction. I agree with you that there was a COI here.

I would like to add that Funcs could say that they had a COI and void the declaration. Instead, they mentioned their state, although nobody asked them. Louvre★Talk 17:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Deletions

מ-ב-צ deleted twice CU requests from the He WP CU page: 1, 2. These deletions were not archived.
Both threads which were deleted contained replies of the He CU PurpleBuffalo and TheStriker.
Since CU replied, מ-ב-צ has not been allowed to delete the whole text, including the He CU's replies.
I did not see the He CU addressing מ-ב-צ, requesting him to cease deleting texts from the CU main page. Louvre★Talk 02:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

A year after

Hello everyone, it's been almost a year since this case was opened. As of now, the filer of the case, along with some of the main writers of the RFC case about hewiki, are still blocked. The new bureaucrats did review some of the appeals to cancel the blocks, and have released some of the blockees, but the rejected appeals are still waiting for the committee to handle their cases. Also, there are other aspects of the case, that weren't addressed yet: Sofiblum's unexplained block, the continuous selective enforcement etc. Barkeep49 Please let us know how you intend to move forward with this. With respect, Ithamar איתמראשפר (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I actually agree with Ithamar on this point. This case requires closure. For months there have been no updates, and the bureaucrats are saying that they cannot take meaningful action until the investigation is formally concluded.

It is also important to note the very extensive investigation and analysis I published in the Hebrew Wikipedia village pump (it can easily be translated with AI). In that analysis I documented, with direct evidence, how dozens of editors joined Wikipedia within short timeframes following calls for recruitment in political WhatsApp groups and then acted in a coordinated way to influence discussions and votes on political and sensitive topics.

The post presents quantitative and statistical analysis showing that the activity patterns of those accounts deviate dramatically from normal or random editor behavior. In other words, when looking at the evidence as a whole, the probability that most of these cases are simply innocent coincidence is close to zero.

Beyond the existence of these coordination groups, the analysis also highlights a serious enforcement disparity. In the case involving the right-wing coordination group, the bureaucrats themselves emphasized that an unusual activity pattern alone could justify blocks. In the current case, the evidence presented goes far beyond that threshold: direct off-wiki documentation of recruitment and coordination, concentrated waves of account creation following recruitment messages, minimal or artificial editing activity aimed primarily at gaining voting rights, unusually high participation in the specific discussions to which recruitment occurred relative to the editors’ experience level, and in some cases repeated timing patterns where responses and votes appeared within minutes of messages posted in the groups.

Taken together, these indicators clearly exceed any reasonable evidentiary standard, including from a probabilistic perspective. Yet despite this, no meaningful action has been taken so far, and some of the involved accounts were even unblocked on appeal. I have asked the bureaucrats several times for clarification and have not received a response.

The result is a growing perception of selective enforcement and the existence of two different standards: in one case a coordination group was dealt with decisively and comprehensively (and rightly so), while in this parallel case, which appears to have caused even broader disruption, the response has been hesitation, silence, and in some cases reversals of sanctions.

For the sake of the community and its trust in the enforcement process, it is essential that the investigation be concluded and its outcome clearly communicated. Yuri (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)