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)