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

This case is currently under review. The U4C is reviewing the evidence and drafting the outcome until 2025-05-31.

Parties

Parties	Notifications
Sofiblum	Filer (no diff required)
User:גארפילד	[1]
User:ביקורת	[2]
User:ארז האורז	[3]
User:Gilgamesh	[4]
User:AddMore-III	[5]
User:יעקב	[6]
User:יאיר דב	[7]

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 Sofiblum (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Sofiblum

Description of the problem - (Sofiblum)

During 2023-2024, Hebrew Wikipedia underwent a severe crisis characterized by violations of the code of conduct by a group of senior role holders and their associates, including the two bureaucrats who served at that time (user: Garfield; user: Bikoret). In November 2024, two new bureaucrats were elected (user: Erez Haorez; user: Funcs), but they did not correct the problems created by their predecessors. On the contrary, one of them (user: Erez Haorez) openly supported the extreme measures of his predecessors and is now trying to continue their approach. The other one announced last week that during the next few months she will be almost completely unavailable, and has effectively stopped functioning as a bureaucrat.

One of the actions taken by the previous bureaucrats was a unilateral change to the voting rights conditions for editors, without involving the community in shaping the new rules, in a way that deprived many editors of voting rights they had been entitled to until that time. The elections of the new bureaucrats, as well as a recent vote opened to determine voting rights criteria, were conducted under the new rules set by the previous bureaucrats without authority, and therefore their validity is questionable.

We – a group of editors in Hebrew Wikipedia – have submitted an RFC on Meta detailing the crisis in Hebrew Wikipedia, and we recommend reading it to get the full picture and historical context. After submitting the RFC, we received a recommendation to also submit a case request to your committee. In this document, we will only address the main violations of the code of conduct that have not been corrected by the new bureaucrats.

A large group of editors, including bureaucrats, system operators and checkusers, are involved in the ethical code violations presented below - this is a systemic problem. In this document we chose to name as parties only the users that we regard as the most prominent in creating and maintaining the atmosphere which allows these violations to occur: Former bureaucrats Bikoret and Garfield, current bureaucrat Erez Haorez, the most offensive editors Gilgamesh and AddMore-III, and the most politically biased editors Yaakov and Yair Dov.

General note: In several places in this document, there are references to editors perceived as having liberal or conservative views. This assessment is based on statements by these editors on their user pages and/or on the basis of content edits and positions expressed in discussions and votes on relevant topics.

1. Abuse of Power (UCoC section 3.2)

• Mass blocking of 59 editors (about 15% of editors with voting rights) without warning and without presenting evidence [see: first wave of blocks; second wave of blocks; table with details of blocked users and their attempts to appeal about the blocks, most of which received no response]. Since the appointment of the new bureaucrats, four editors have been unblocked, two of them with significant restrictions (as detailed in the table).

• Unilateral change of voting rights criteria (from one month to a year) [link to the announcement]. As mentioned above, since the appointment of the new bureaucrats, a vote has been opened on this issue, but only those who have voting rights according to the unilateral change could participate.
• The events described above were preceded by an announcement from the previous bureaucrats about expanding their authority on political issues without community approval: a policy under which articles would be locked for long periods for rewriting and other articles would be removed due to "reasonable concern that they are biased"; and about blocking editors "who continue with non-encyclopedic political engagement", despite there being no prohibition on editing current affairs articles and no rules regulating this issue.

2. Harassment (UCoC section 3.1)

• There is a climate of bullying in Hebrew Wikipedia that includes insults and threats, especially (but not only) towards women, which in most cases is not being addressed [see: findings on this issue from a survey conducted by Wikimedia Israel Foundation; a table listing examples of threatening or humiliating expressions by editors, which unfortunately constitute a routine matter]. Among editors exhibiting negative conduct, User: Gilgamesh and User: AddMore-III stand out as their harassment shows a persistent pattern that is particularly severe compared to others, therefore they were included as parties in this case. Examples of their concerning behavior are documented in this table.

• There is selective enforcement of the code of conduct – on one hand, there is a group of editors, including some with administrator and checker permissions (mainly those with a conservative worldview), on whom the ethical code is not properly enforced (see examples here), and on the other hand, there is a group of editors (mainly women, who are already a small minority in Hebrew Wikipedia, and editors with a liberal worldview) on whom harsh sanctions are imposed disproportionately for every minor expression – see examples here.
• Threats of additional blocks, for example here by a previous bureaucrat, and here by the new bureaucrat Erez Haorez – he threatened to block anyone who would claim that he is wrong or that he discriminates against liberal editors in favor of right-wing editors.

3. Content Vandalism (UCoC section 3.3)

There are selective restrictions on editing political topics that are mainly directed toward editors perceived as having liberal views. Examples include a request for mandatory mentorship due to editing political topics here and a block from all pages "for not finding a mentor within 10 days" here; threats of blocking here; a "recommendation" to not edit articles about current events here; pressure on a veteran liberal editor to withdraw his candidacy for system administrator because of his political views here. On the other hand, editors perceived as having conservative views are free to edit on current affairs without interference, and serve as system administrators and checkers.

• An especially extreme case is that of the user: Yaakov (formerly user: Adiral) who has a long history of warnings, complaints, blocks, and even articles which were published in the Israeli media, about his edits that are biased toward the right-wing-national-settler agenda, and attempt to “protect” articles about members and actions of the current government (see details and examples here). Yaakov was blocked for 6 months in May 2024, but since the block ended he continues to edit in this manner, without any sanctions. Due to his biased edits and aggressive behavior (see also the list of offensive responses here), which have continued for years despite repeated warnings and blocks (apparently not decisive enough), he also constitutes a party in the current complaint.

• Another prominent case is of User: Yair Dov (a religious settler, according to his user page). He writes articles about current events, sometimes only a few hours after the event took place (for example "Trump’s plan for Gaza", "The five Israeli outposts in southern Lebanon") or even before they happened (for example: "The Iranian attack on Israel (April 2024)", "The funeral of Hassan Nasrallah") - such writing violates the rule “Wikipedia is not a newspaper” and involves a lot of original research. His political bias is clear from the choice of words in his articles, his choice of sources and the subjects he chooses to write about (for example: Palestinian Illegal buildings in Area C, Blocking of aid trucks to the Gaza Strip) and he was even warned about it several times, for example here and here, but during his 9 years of biased editing, he was blocked only once, for 3 hours. In practice, he continues to edit this way without interruption.

• Another example is User: Veten Tal (right-wing religious according to his user page). He is very active in political articles and his talk page is full of warnings regarding his biased edits and his aggressive behavior in discussions around political articles (for example here, a here and here), yet not only that he is not required to undergo mandatory mentoring, he has monitor permission and in practice marks whether edits by other editors are constructive or not. He was blocked only once for two hours (was blocked for a week and immediately released) and for a day.

We must stress that while these users are sometimes warned by the admins, and even blocked (rarely), the sanctions against liberal and secular editors are much harsher, and more frequent. Naturally, massive restrictions on one side and freedom of editing and easy access to permissions for the other side creates a bias in the written content. For example, the article "Settlers Violence" was deleted and attempts to restore it were blocked, despite it being a well-researched topic that exists in other Wikipedias (English, French etc.). We can provide many more such examples upon request (they require some understanding of Israeli politics).

Previous attempts at a solution - (Sofiblum)

Attempts were made to solve the problem in all existing channels:

• After protests about the inability to appeal the mass blocks, blocked editors were given permission to write on their talk pages. Twenty of them submitted appeals this way, but none received a response, except for two editors whose appeals were rejected outright (details in this table).

• More than ten editors submitted Requests for Comments on Meta regarding their blocks, but so far these requests seem to have received little attention. The bureaucrats were tagged in some of these requests, but they ignored the tags and did not join the discussion (details in the table).

• Many editors (including very veteran ones) opened discussions and responded critically to the processes described above, but were not listened to by the bureaucrats and were even attacked for their posts. A list of examples of critical statements by editors on the subject appears here.

• At the end of December 2024, we submitted a detailed RFC to Meta about the difficult situation in Hebrew Wikipedia. The complaint has so far been signed by 41 editors, despite some signatories being attacked in the Hebrew Wikipedia talk spaces for their signatures. An email regarding the issue was also sent to the Trust & Safety team.

As mentioned above, in November 2024 the bureaucrats were replaced, but the processes described above continued.

Suggested solutions - (Sofiblum)

Given the severity of the situation and the failure of local resolution attempts, our suggested solutions are as following:

1. Investigation of the violations described in this document
2. Appointment of temporary external supervision for Hebrew Wikipedia
3. Cancellation of unilateral rule changes
4. Establishment of an appeals committee to review the mass blocks
5. Examination of the permissions of the involved role holders

User:יעקב

This complaint follows an attempt of a group of Israeli activists, Sofiblum being one of them, to overtake the Hebrew Wikipedia and convert it into a propegenda platform diseminating their agenda. These activists have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia and have been a terrible nusance to the writing of the Hebrew Wikipedia, not only entering biased and false information but also trying to push members of the group to take over critical positions in managment of the Wikipedia. A recruitment notice of the group appears here. At first the group was proud of their acts and commissioned stories about it on the Israel media such as this article. Due to their acts some of the participants were suspended from the Hebrew Wikipedia, by the beurocrates. This complaint is part of their attempt to take over the Hebrew Wikipedia.

The complaint against me is part of one of the strategies of this biased group to take over the Hebrew Wikipedia, namely endless complaints designed to expel editors who stand against their introduction of false and biased information to the Hebrew Wikipedia. יעקב (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases it seems the comlaint against me is not in the authority of the committee. I will therefore ignore it and spend my time writing an encyclopdia instead of endless arguing with people who want to destroy the encyclopedia we are writing. If I am mistaken please notify me on the Hebrew Wiki. 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

אמא של seems to be claiming that since she joined the Wikipedia before the recruiting tweet I posted, she could not be part of the recruited group. I would first like to note that she joined Wikipedia in 2013, but at that time only edited for two days in what seems to be a course of exposure to Wikipedia. She then made one small edit in 2016 and returned to Wikipedia in 2021. I do not know her motives for returning to the Wikipedia in 2021, but that does not matter. Obviously, active Wikipedia editors would be more than welcome to the bias group, whenever it was formed. It is further noted that the recruitment tweet I posted is not claiming to form the group, but rather is recruiting further members to an established group. Nonetheless, many of the members of the group, a quite comprehensive list of which can be found in those voting to remove the beurocrat rights in HE:ויקיפדיה:ביטול הרשאה/Dovno (only fewer than 10 voted for the removal without being part of the biased group), joined during 2023, clearly as part of the recruiting efforts of the biased group.

The activity of this biased group is known not only from the media external to the Wikipedia but also, and mainly, from their acts on the Wikipedia itself. Hundreds of articles were deliberately biased by the group and attempts to correct the biases were countered by members of the group suddenly appearing on the talk page out of nowhere, and expressing with no or weird explanations that the biased and false content is not to be changed. The group included some members who were active in biasing content, while others would edit in fields totally unrelated to politics (or would just make small or even useless edits to keep their voting rights active) and would come to talk and voting pages to help the active editors. One of the most disturbing examples was the adding of Netanyahu to HE:פולחן אישיות along with Hitler and Stalin. The editors of the biased group actually argued for this edit on the talk page. There are many more. Another one is at: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_444#%D7%94%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%94 . Members of the biased group came to the discussion at the call of Itamar Eshpar to prevent stating the acts of generals in the night before the attack. They explained that Netanyahu would benefit from stating this information and therefore it should not be included on the pages of the generals.

I could bring dozens more examples, but I note that I was expelled from Wikipedia for six months for attempting to expose the biases of this group. My expelling in itself is proof that the complaint is without merit. If the beurocrates were really biased against this group, why would they block me again and again for trying to expose the problems in the acts of this group?

One of the issues I exposed but was never pursued (except reprimanding me for insulting the users who voted twice) was the fact that several members of the group voted twice in various voting pages. One of them actually voted twice, supposedly by mistake, in five different voting pages. It is understood that people make mistakes, but voting twice, especially when it happens again and again, raises the suspicion that the voter is not really aware of the substance of the voting and is being recruited by others.

I am not part of the management of the Hebrew Wikipedia, but I understand that the blocks were based on information from a whatsapp channel of this biased group in which they were managing their bias efforts. Thus, there is more than enough proof for the existence and activity of this biasing group. Actually, among Hebrew Wikipedia editors I doubt there is anyone who would take the denials seriously.

Replies to user:יעקב (Yaakov)

To prove his bold claims that the RFC and this case were created by “a group of activists”, User:Yaakov links to a “recruit tweet” by a prominent activist, and to a TV story about this same activist claiming he established “a Wikipedia Patrol”. I have no connection whatsoever to that activist, and I don’t know about any affiliation between him and the other editors who co-wrote the RFC. This claim is easily debunked when you note that the allegedly “recruiting tweet” is from August 2023 and the TV story is from March 2024, while I joined Wikipedia in 2013, IthamarEshpar joined in 2019, Sofiblum joined in 2021, and the other writers who prefer to remain anonymous have all joined long before that tweet. I don’t know if that “Wikipedia patrol” does exist, or if it’s just another one of that activist’s many self-glorifying declarations, but it’s clear that neither I nor any of the other users involved in this case are related to this “evidence”. אמא של (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:ארז האורז

Hello,

I have seen that a complaint has been filed against me claiming inappropriate behavior on my part. I have reviewed the arguments made about me, and unfortunately, I have found that the complainants are lying about my behavior.

I will try to address in a comprehensive manner the claims made against me, as well as other matters that require clarification.

The political situation in Israel has intensified discourse in recent years, and this is also reflected in our Wikipedia. Hebrew Wikipedia has been subject to many biases from two main groups: a group of right-wing editors (led by Viki.coo) and a group of liberal editors (led by Ithamareshpar), as well as politically motivated editors who acted independently to introduce bias. For a period of about a year, these two groups recruited many editors for votes and discussions, as well as for edit wars (Hebrew Wikipedia has strict and clear rules forbidding restoration of any reverted edit without a discussion). This process transformed our dispute resolution mechanism, which relies on the principle of the wisdom of crowds (i.e., when many people knowledgeable about topics are discussing - voting will usually reflect a neutral and accurate answer that presents all relevant point of views), into a mechanism that became biased because the participants who were called in did not prioritize the encyclopedia, but rather their political agenda, and in fact they are propagandists trying to promote a one-sided point of view. The previous bureaucrats decided, in a controversial move, to block all sock puppets and "meat puppets" intended for voting, as well as the users who operated them and additional users who were found to have direct connections to these groups. The move was controversial because they did not share all the evidence that led to the blocks with the community due to concerns that their disclosure would help future editors who might want to bias the article space. Indeed, I declared that at the time this was an unavoidable step, since after the previous bureaucrats took this action, the number of controversial votes and political discussions significantly decreased. However, I have also stated several times that I believe that despite the general direction of the steps taken by the previous bureaucrats is positive, there were specific flaws that need to be corrected. During my tenure and that of my partner, Funcs, we reopened the Parliament (the highest decision-making body in Hebrew Wikipedia, where policies are voted) after it was closed due to concerns that the many biased editors would influence the votes (which we promised to change quickly - and indeed it was changed after just a few weeks), we managed to pass orderly criteria for voting rights (a controversial step that the bureaucrats took to prevent the recruitment of new users for votes - a step that I principally agree with, but was done as an emergency measure without community approval - since such approval requires a vote; the emergency rules of the previous bureaucrats did not apply to that vote, contrary to what is claimed in the complaint), and we also released several editors who were blocked under restrictive conditions, so that they could return to contributing and editing pages that would ensure they would not engage in politics (and additional editors will be reviewed in the future). My partner and I have set ourselves the goal of correcting all the injustices caused, and the submission of the current complaint and the previous complaint, when in practice we have only been in the position for a few months, does not advance the correction of injustices but is part of the strategy of the group of propagandists, which brought us to the current emergency situation in the first place. In any situation where site admins and bureaucrats do not support their agenda in discussions and disputes - they recruit a large group of editors to back them up. In this way, they even paralyzed discussions for selecting new admins in the last year and a half. After this strategy was blocked - they flood with complaints against the admin/bureaucrat to the Wikimedia Foundation, opened two impeachment proceedings within Hebrew Wikipedia against serving bureaucrats, and tried, after two waves of blockings, to off-wiki influence the selection of a checkuser - the most sensitive role in the project which includes exposure to highly sensitive and private information. I will add that the choice to present this claim in my context, when in practice there were many others (who are not mentioned here in the complaint) who supported the steps of the previous bureaucrats, only clarifies that this claim is not unique to me, and it reflects the opinions of many member of our community. The way in which my position was presented falsely presents the reality as if the resistance to the former bureaucrats was the general mood, while in fact many editors supported them and held similar opinions to mine, despite a loud minority.

It was alleged here that I declared that I would block anyone who disagrees with me, or anyone who says that I harass editors based on their political views. Regarding the first statement - this is a distortion of my words with the aim of continuing to justify the mantra of "position holders in Hebrew Wikipedia are biased and right-wing" that is said by this group regardless of the political identity or the words and actions of the position holder. This statement was written in the context of a discussion requesting the release of Sofiblum from mandatory mentorship, when a user claimed that I, as the one who wrote a response in Sofi's discussion stating that both bureaucrats believe the mentorship is justified and should not be removed, should admit my mistake, while my partner is free from any mistake. My intention was to say that if someone thinks one of us made a mistake, they need to understand that it's a decision of both of us. That is, if they claim I'm wrong, it means both of us are wrong. As for the second claim that I discriminate against editors based on their political views: I have never harassed anyone because of their political views, and there is no evidence of this in Wikipedia. I respect people's different opinions, and even more respect the principle of the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia, which the complainants want to trample. I will also note that in the previous complaint, it was written about me without any basis that I have right-wing tendencies, and it was implied that I am domineering and misogynistic, and that I do not allow my partner to express herself (something that was written six weeks after we took office). I have been friends with my partner for several years, and we have good and respectful relations.

On this occasion, I would like to present to you in depth Sofiblum and Ithamar, the complainants, to provide a better context regarding their actions that led to the restrictions imposed on them: Sofiblum is an editor about whom there was recently a discussion regarding the cancellation of mandatory mentorship, which was imposed on her when Garfield and Bikoret were in the position of bureaucrats. After thorough research and review of Sofi's edits, we concluded that she performs problematic edits, including the use of low-quality sources, the addition of original research, and the addition of unimportant information. During the discussion, there was a substantive dialogue, with the last detailed response being from me and the additional bureaucrat. However, no user in the discussion who opposed our decision responded substantively to our claims and evidence - they chose to question our intentions, and to make arguments about editors personally (ad hominem) while ignoring the many examples we provided explaining why we made the decision. Sofi chose to reject our decision to continue the mentorship, and thus effectively sentenced herself to a block. IthamarEshpar is an editor who was blocked in one of the mass blockings, after a connection was found between him and other users who worked to bias Wikipedia (furthermore, Ithamar led a group of users whose first and foremost goal was to bias Wikipedia). I refrained from responding to his blocking because I was not familiar with the details at that time. After being blocked, IthamarEshpar began to circumvent his block (and even declared it at times on Wikipedia pages). After many attempts to circumvent his block (which mainly included editing under IP addresses, and even using the account of another known editor and editing in her name), the trigger that caused him to be declared a troll was a threat on a colleague in the project who represents a different political ideology from Ithamar's, and misrepresenting the user's identity. It should be noted that the user who was threatened by Ithamar does not deal with political articles at all. The threat stated: “[...] We will continue to haunt you not only in the discussions but also in your dreams, nightmares and your petite-fascist hallucinations. You will not escape the truth, you will not receive an exemption and you will not receive rest, as befits a hybrid combination of a rhinoceros and a dwarf bulldog. Your serial violations of the rules, the abuse of authority that you have demonstrated since you were elected as an administrator [...], you will pay for all of these one day with a permanent block plus mandatory daily mentorship, as the saying goes: "I will punish you for your sins" (as a religious settler, you are surely familiar with the expression).” For additional information/clarifications for the information I wrote, you can contact me privately.

I must note that I read the complaint regarding myself only. However, the choice to open another complaint including Garfield and Bikoret is "puzzling." Garfield hardly edits the project, if at all, and his last edit was about a month ago. Bikoret, on the other hand, does edit the project relatively frequently, but does not hold a senior authorization (admin etc.) and does not take an active part in discussions as he did in the past. In the previous complaint, the group of complainants explained in detail why the behavior of Garfield and Bikoret is problematic. Since they have hardly been involved in the site since the end of their term as bureaucrats, the very opening of this complaint, including their names again, is unnecessary, and is reflected in my eyes as an action whose purpose is revenge only.

In conclusion, the complaint includes a distortion of the truth about me. I have no intention to cooperate with the exhaustion discussion strategy that the complainants frequently adopt. I will be happy to answer the people in charge here any additional question. You are welcome to contact me via email as well, if you need any additional information or clarifications regarding users or my actions. ארז האורז (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User:יאיר דב

Hello,

Unfortunately, Sofiblum, and the group of blocked editors she represents, makes false claims against me, while deliberately ignoring many other editors who make political edits daily without interference. The only time I was blocked, for a very short period, was for creating an article about a phenomenon that, according to the bureaucrat who blocked me, required academic research to substantiate it. After I clarified that I created the article after consulting with other experienced editors, and reached an agreement with that bureaucrat that I would not write articles about unsubstantiated phenomena, I was immediately unblocked. Therefore, the claim that I was warned against writing about current events is a lie.

Furthermore, writing current events articles is something that is done regularly on all of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with writing articles about current or even future events. The article about 'Hassan Nasrallah's funeral' was written on several Wikipedias, including the English Wikipedia, the day before the funeral took place. Therefore, the claim that writing current events articles is against Wikipedia's rules is also a false claim.

Moreover, out of the 550 articles I created, the vast majority do not deal with current events, but with completely different areas such as geography, history, the Bible, Jewish law, personalities, and so on. Even a large portion of the current events articles I created were written as part of the 'Urgent Treatment Project', many of whose articles are on current events, and the project's operators, אגסי and עמיחי, can testify that my writing there is balanced and objective. This is in contrast to the user Bakbik1234, for example, whose over 95% of his edits in the 3.5 years he has been editing on the Hebrew Wikipedia deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and due to his controversial edits, he was placed under mandatory mentorship for an extended period, and was even blocked several times, but all this does not prevent him from continuing to edit only on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many of his edits are controversial. For some reason, Sofiblum did not find it appropriate to complain about Bakbik1234.

In conclusion, the group of blocked editors that Sofiblum represents were blocked due to group organization in WhatsApp groups intended to conduct 'recruitment' to manipulate discussions and votes on Wikipedia talk and voting pages. Having realized that they could not manipulate Wikipedia articles by editing them, they are now turning to try to sabotage it by fabricating false accusations against other editors. I ask the esteemed members of the committee to thoroughly investigate the suspicions against this group of editors, and to judge whether their claims of 'selective enforcement' are indeed justified, or whether it is an attempt to clear their names and take revenge on editors whose edits they do not like. thank you! יאיר דב (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yair Dov completely ignores my contribution to non-political topics, such as writing a dozen articles about various metal bands. While it is true that my views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip are considered controversial among the Jewish population in Israel, I make sure to use reliable sources for any information I add to Wikipedia. Right-wing editors, including Yair Dov, have accused me of anti-Israel bias and asked me to stop quoting Haaretz. In reality, I don't even identify as pro-Palestine. Despite this, I was still blocked many times and placed under mandatory mentorship. This highlights how problematic the Hebrew-Israeli Wikipedia has become. Bakbik1234 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

• Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
• Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
• Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
• All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (Yuri)

Since I have been mentioned explicitly in this complaint here, I wish to clarify several critical points and respond comprehensively:

1. Organized Attempt to Influence Hebrew Wikipedia: This current complaint is part of a continued and organized attempt by a specific group of editors with clear political motivations, primarily left-wing, to influence and ultimately take control of Hebrew Wikipedia. This is not merely a rhetorical claim, it is supported by concrete evidence. The existence of this group and the harm it has caused are well documented and substantiated by leaked WhatsApp communications, which demonstrate explicit coordination aimed at manipulating votes, policy discussions, and content creation. I am willing and prepared to share these detailed messages and other relevant evidence with the committee upon request. I have previously outlined this extensively in my response to their RFC.
2. Voting Rights Criteria and Legitimacy: The complaint inaccurately portrays the changes in voting as having "questionable validity". The reality is that the previous bureaucrats made a unilateral decision to adjust the voting rights criteria to require one year of registration on the project. After the new bureaucrats were elected, they reopened the parliament, and the Hebrew Wikipedia community subsequently approved overwhelmingly, almost by consensus, even stricter voting rights criteria specifically designed to combat attempts of political manipulation by organized groups. The complaint's claim that restricting the initial voting to editors with at least one year of registration invalidates the outcome is unfounded because the overwhelming community consensus clearly indicates the result would have remained the same even without this restriction.
3. Critical Assessment of the Previous Bureaucrats' Actions: It is important to acknowledge my own critiques of certain actions taken by the former bureaucrats. For example, the prolonged closure of the parliament was problematic, as was the highly selective blocking strategy. The previous bureaucrats chose to block only users who were conclusively identified (beyond reasonable doubt) as part of this disruptive group. Many other editors, who were strongly suspected due to compelling circumstantial evidence, remained active due to the bureaucrats hesitation and excessive caution. This selective enforcement created confusion and contributed to ongoing disruptions. Unfortunately, the newly elected bureaucrats, despite their promises to fully address these issues, have not taken decisive action against the remaining participants of this organized group. Instead, they have even released several previously blocked members, albeit with restrictions. This inconsistent approach stands in sharp contrast to the handling of a similar organized right-wing group, which faced a much more decisive and comprehensive response, despite causing significantly less damage to the project (see the complete block of this group in the first wave of blocks).
4. Misleading Number of Signatures on the RFC: The complaint suggests that the number of signatories on the RFC reflects broad community support or inherent legitimacy. However, this number is highly misleading. Evidence clearly indicates that the core of this organized group includes over 60 editors, many of whom remain unidentified due to the challenges in definitively linking Wikipedia accounts to WhatsApp profiles. Nonetheless, compelling circumstantial evidence links many RFC signatories directly or indirectly to this disruptive group, further undermining the supposed neutrality or representativeness of their claims.

This complaint and related RFC represent not a genuine grassroots concern for neutrality or fairness, but rather the continuation of a strategic effort by an organized faction seeking control over Hebrew Wikipedia. Transparent examination of available evidence, particularly the coordination revealed through leaked communications, clearly demonstrates that the actions taken by the bureaucrats, while imperfect, were fundamentally necessary to safeguard the project’s integrity and neutrality.

I strongly urge the committee to carefully examine all relevant evidence, including communications from this organized group, before making any decisions. True neutrality and fairness require recognition of the harm caused by these organized factions and consistent enforcement of rules regardless of political alignment. Yuri (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (לובר)

I would like to provide more information about the canvassing that the i.p. did at the village pump in the He WP, and about myself.

The i.p. was not in Israel, as Guycn2 wrote, and was not blocked in the He WP, after they had canvassed there against Sofiblum (Sofi).

לידך בלעדייך claimed on the He WP checkuser page that applying the U4C was like a "legal threat". They continued the canvassing against Sofi, but were not blocked or warned. As seen on their user page in the He WP, they were religious, i.e. right-wing.

כלנית ב (Calanit) wrote on the checkuser page about the i.p.: "I am 93% certain of who it is. His tone of self-righteousness, whining, and victimization gave him away".

איתמראשפר wrote: "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 recognize 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)", but I was indefinitely blocked without any reason. My articles were focused on Brigitte Bardot's movies, not about any particular political viewpoint. The He WP admin and the checkuser Barak a deleted all the articles which I created, as shown here. This article analyzes the reasoning behind their deeds.

Regarding moving the RFC discussions to its talk page, I have also deleted some text of mine from the RFC, to narrow it down. I think that moving the text was fine, after the accusations which a He WP admin had written there. I redacted it, but they terrified me twice. I applied the RFH, but it was helpless, because they applied the He WP bureaucrat Funcs for validating their threats. They claimed that I was a sock of Dorian, although it took two months to check my user, and although I had been claimed by the troll which Calanit identified today. ניב, who declined the request to block the i.p., supported the application. My account has been added on the Dorian's user page by the He WP admin who applied Funcs. Afterwards they added another account which has never been under a user check, because it was also claimed by the same troll which Calanit identified (אוקספורד). _Louvre|Talk 23:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yuri replied Barkeep49 on the talk page of Sofi in the He WP, and claimed that the liberal faction activity included significant distortions, half-truths, and outright misrepresentations, often deliberately stripping events of context, to create a skewed narrative. However, I have not seen evidence of it, and Sofi showed that the right-wing did the same editings in the He WP.

The real faction in the He WP was the group of the bureaucrats, a part of the admins and the checkusers. I was blocked immediately after I had thanked the checkusers and the bureaucrats, because they did not want to "loss". Yuri wrote also about it: "In recent years, Israel has experienced significant political upheaval and a deepening of divisions. This polarization inevitably spilled over into the Hebrew Wikipedia". I linked to Maariv due to this reason.

I am not involved with Sofi or איתמראשפר, and agree that the edits of Bakbik in the He WP might not be accepted. I am not Bakbik and have never edited like him, but I was blocked. It was in contradiction to the written policy of the He WP bureaucrats, because Barak had to "win" as a part of the group. Afterwards, their actions were followed and were elevated by other He WP admins as I described here and in the RFC, including the text in the RFC which I deleted later. _Louvre|Talk 00:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yuri applied Hanay, after she had written about Yuri: "This one who floods this discussion with very long reactions".

Two different He WP admins suggested iban, but it was not applicable on the He WP.

The point was that Yuri wrote: "It is always one-sided, because she keeps nagging and harassing me. But when I nag her back, I am immediately blocked, while she is repeatedly ignored. The fact that this is a selective enforcement, in which Hanay can continue to harass and attack me over and over again without any practical consequences, is an incentive for her to continue down the same path".

In these words, Yuri stated that there was a selective enforcement in the He WP.

Another issue was Hanay's application to hide what the i.p. wrote against Sofi in the He WP village pump. There was a checking user upon this i.p., but there were no results, because the i.p. was suspected of crimes. Barak has already written that it was the troll who harassed Dorian, and Calanit also identified this i.p.

Niv, a He WP admin, who requested Funcs to declare Dorian as a "troll", while the result was that I was also declared, as it was written on the user page of Dorian, declined the request of Hanay to hide the i.p.'s text on the He WP village pump. User:אוקספורד (Oxford) who harassed 35 of May (May) also did not result findings, like the i.p. who harassed Sofi, but Funcs declared May as a "troll", although May edited in collaboration with Funcs, like here and here, and Hanay declined the claim of Oxford against May. Furthermore, May stopped editing on 31 August 2024 but was declared only on 20 February 2025. _Louvre|Talk 01:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear U4C members,

By the very nice requests of Barkeep49 and Ghilt, I post here my last comment, which summarized the issue.

The whole case is here. _Louvre|Talk 01:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear U4C, I was very glad to find the reply of Barkeep49 yesterday.

Here I link two additioal events from my talk page: 1, 2. The issue with the He WP admin ניב was not ended. It went on, when מי-נהר wrote there: "עמדותיו הפוליטיות: לא מקובל לכתוב כך. פרק העוסק בעמדות יש להציגן בצורה עניינית מה הן. או להחזיר לגרסה יציבה. המפעיל לא קיבל סמכות להשתתף במלחמת עריכה תוך התעלמות מדף השיחה אלא לנהל את הפסקתה של מלחמת עריכה" (my highlights, Louvre). These are two serious accusations against an admin while performing his role. _Louvre|Talk 06:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello U4C members,

As a result of your last vote, my appeal is here.

Thank you, Louvre★Talk 19:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello U4C, I appealed to you directly on 4 September 2025 and on 19 October 2025. The He WP ceased to deal with the case. Its last edit was on 24 September 2025 by ארז האורז. Louvre★Talk 18:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Guycn2)

For what it's worth, I'd like to thank Erez and Funcs: You're doing a terrific job 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 deeply appreciate your impressive collaboration in addressing all contentious disputes thoroughly and impartially. It can safely be said that hewiki is heading in the right direction under your leadership.

The outgoing bureaucrats, Garfield and Bikoret, also made tremendous efforts to heal hewiki's community and safeguard the encyclopedia against countless organized off-wiki bias threats during Israel's most polarized times. I believe they navigated this unprecedented crisis with great success as well.

I kindly ask the Committee to consider the full picture, while also taking into account the solid backing 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) 10:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback user:אמא של (Imma Shell)

As one of the writers of the RFC, as well as this U4C case, I would like to point another issue which I find disturbing, and wasn’t included in this case: I don’t know if either Erez or Funcs were involved in the investigations that led to the mass blocks, but I do know that several users with no special permissions, who weren’t elected by the community, did get involved. We know that for a fact because:

1. The previous bureaucrats openly declared that they involved several editors in the investigation, but refused to disclose the identity of these users.
2. The user Gilgamesh, who has no special permissions, admitted twice of participating in the bureaucrats’ “check team” and being involved in Sofi’s block (here and here).
3. Another user who has no special permissions but was probably involved in the bureaucrats’ investigation team, is Guycn2. Only a few days before the first mass block, Guycn2 went over 38 old polls and updated the votes, and a day after the mass block he pasted a “permanently blocked” template on the blocked editors’ user and talk pages. Please note that Guycn2 supported the bureaucrats on this page, without revealing his involvement in the affair.
4. Another user who may have been involved in the bureaucrats’ investigation team, without any special privileges, is Neriah. A day after the first mass block this user updated the results of polls which the bureaucrats declared as “affected by recruits”, and a day after the 2nd mass block he pasted a “permanently blocked” template on blocked users’ pages, and asked user:Guycn2 to update the gadget for checking voting right with the new “emergency criteria” imposed by the bureaucrats. Three months later, Neriah was suggested by the bureaucrats as a candidate for adminship, and he received his adminship permissions on October 2024. Please note that Neriah supported the previous bureaucrats on the RFC talk page, without revealing his involvement with them.

I too join in the hope that the U4C will thoroughly examine the claims we raised in this complaint. Thank you, אמא של (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Funcs)

I read this comment by Sofiblum, and it sparked my urge to response.

What they’re trying to do is trap us in a catch-22. Every decision we make gets framed to suit their narrative. If we make a decision they don’t like, they criticize it. If we make one they agree with, they present it as if we were just trying to avoid their complaints. This kind of framing limits our ability to act in any way and weakens our decision-making as bureaucrats and admins.

Let me be clear: every decision we make is based only on what we believe is best for Wikipedia. Any attempt to portray it differently is a distortion of reality meant to serve a particular agenda.

Sofiblum’s comment highlights a bigger problem — the unwillingness to engage in honest, adult conversation to resolve disagreements. Instead, we get the "who shouts louder" approach. This is harmful to Wikipedia. It affects everything from how we vote on factual content to how we elect people to positions. This approach really started to take hold when this group began working together, and since then, it has only grown stronger. It’s gone so far that, in some parts of Wikipedia, people no longer remember the older, more thoughtful ways of making decisions. Right now, you can often guess the content of a comment just by seeing who wrote it. That’s a dangerous place to be in, and we need to think seriously about how we move past it. As bureaucrats, this is one of our main missions - to help bring back a culture of respectful, thoughtful dialogue.

The complaints were submitted only two months after we took on the role of bureaucrats, without giving us a real chance to do anything - no room to make changes, share ideas, or even define our approach. This rush to judgment is disappointing. From the start, this group targeted Erez the moment his name came up, for no real reason. They’ve tried to paint a picture of him leading and me being silenced, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Erez and I are a team. We don’t always agree, but we work through our differences and make decisions together. Both of our voices are always heard.

When I saw the complaint, what upset me wasn’t the fact that it was filed, but the way facts were twisted to fit a narrative. It’s human nature to emphasize the facts that support your side and ignore the rest. But when that’s done deliberately to influence people who don’t know the full picture, it becomes deeply unfair.

So, to the committee: please remember that you've heard just one side of the story, and it’s a version crafted to shape your opinion. Approach everything you hear with care and critical thinking. Funcs (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (calanit)

Imagine Émile Zola being permanently blocked from HeWiki.

Between June and August 2024, approximately 60 editors were permanently blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia (hewiki). The first wave of blocks occurred on June 2, when around 40 editors were identified as sock puppets (or equivalent), after being engaged in performing minor edits solely to acquire voting rights. A loophole had been discovered that allowed users to gain voting rights with minimal effort. In response, the identified accounts were blocked, and the loophole was swiftly closed by introducing stricter voting eligibility criteria. The matter could have ended there—but it did not.

Following the mass blocking, the bureaucrats appeared to adopt an increasingly aggressive stance. In a Trigger-Happy momentum, they proceeded to permanently ban some of the most devoted, insightful, and productive editors in hewiki’s history. While several explanations were offered, they were vague, inconsistent, and at times contradictory. It became evident that additional, perhaps unconscious, motives were at play. Was it jealousy? political disagreement? Or were these editors made into scapegoats—an outlet for the collective anxiety that had begun to permeate the community?

In time, the two bureaucrats were removed from their positions and replaced by others. Some of the bans were reversed. Nevertheless, to this day, some of the most talented and dedicated voices in Hebrew Wikipedia were permanently expelled from hewiki on what appears, in retrospect, to have been an impulsive whim.

In my mind, they deserve more than exile. They deserve a pardon—and an invitation to return to the hewiki community. כלנית ב (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Talyane)

As I mentioned in the original RfC, while I concur, there are also additional issues surrounding Women and LGBTQ+ topics and editors.
There is a policy that has been semi-standing for over 8 years to misgender and deadname transgender women in articles concerning them (a policy that still very much stands in the articles that started the discussion: he:סתיו סטרשקו and he:אבי שטיין. There were instances where the anti-LGBTQ+ faction tried to use the voting mechanism to establish homophobic pseudoscience as fact or enact transphobic policies. As such, HeWiki almost (and only thanks to a great struggle did not) made the decision to present conversion therapy as a legitimate practice or treat nonbinary individuals as women and ignore their gender identity, with editors expressing homophobic or transphobic positions not being repremanded.
After User:TMagen was permanently blocked virtually every pro-LGBTQ+ or feminist editor was accused of being a TMagen sockpuppet, almost always without any basis in reality and the wiki immediately became more hostile to female and LGBTQ+ editors.
There has also been persistent and basically untreated history of harassment of female and LGBTQ+ editors, and in particular, transgender editors. To my knowledge I am the last openly-out transgender editor still somewhat active in LGBTQ+-related discussions in HeWiki, and that's not a coincidence. Among the nicknames that were given to LGBTQ+ people in general and trans people specifically are "sick ideas", "a bunch of monkeys", "spreading a radical political genderist-progressivist agenda", etc. I myself have been subject to editors deliberately misgendering me and announcing they are doing that on purpose, or to various deliberate insults, including that I'm "a traitor to nature". After harassing me and others, those users were often given by the administrators weeks to keep on with their behavior, often repeating the offences in the very page discussing them, before being blocked. On one occasion, a user was not repremanded at all despite refusing to say what he has done wrong, with the same administrator considering that a worthy resolution later temp-blocking me for documenting the whole ordeal on my user page.
All of this, the hostile environment, the explicitly transphobic policies and the almost-implemented additional homophobic and transphobic policies, as well as other things I haven't even started discussing - such as the fact that the articles of women or LGBTQ+ people are much more likely to be deleted, or the fact that some notable instances of transphobia in the media are forbidden from being mentioned in articles - have lead to a silent exodus of LGBTQ+ and female editors from the Wiki.
To me, the Hebrew Wikipedia can no longer be considered a reliable place for people to self-educate themselves on subjects. I and others have made our best efforts to counteract that, but the reality is the average HeWiki reader will be mislead when it comes to many critical subjects. It is now up to the U4C to decide if that remains the case, or if we are to see a change in this project.
TalyaNe (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to share this. I really hear you, and I agree that these are serious issues that need to be addressed - no one should have to deal with discrimination or disrespect, especially in a community that is based on collaboration.

At the same time, I feel like this is a different issue from the one discussed here, and it probably needs to be handled separately. I don’t see a direct connection between what you described and the users involved in this case.

I'm more than willing to listen if you want to share more, and I’d be happy to help however I can. Funcs (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

on the contrary. i find that the harassment of women and LGBTQ+ editors off of the platform is part of what lead to the current situation, and that the one-sided tolerance of bigotry while not tolerating response to it is very much part of a whole pattern.

not to pull too much from the world outside Wikipedia, but the fact that transphobia is a gateway to further political radicalisation has been well demonstrated in research - i even used to give lectures on the subject. in the context of an alleged political bias tolerated and promoted by those in power within the Wiki, the history of similar behaviour when it comes to intolerant views by editors targeted at fellow editors is very much relevant. TalyaNe (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback user:אמא של (Imma Shell)

I would like to add another incident that is an example of selective enforcement. In this discussion, tempers flared and at least 4 editors insulted other editors. In one of the cases, an editor named Dachez wrote that I was lying here. The bureaucrat Erez Aorez, who was involved in the discussion and responded to it quite a lot, ignored the insults of his right-wing colleagues. For a week, the insults remained in the discussion. Only after my protest and that of another editor were the comments deleted, but without a response or warning to the writers. The bureaucrat Funcs wrote to Dachez gently that it was "not acceptable" to talk like that and added that she was really quite surprised by my response, which led him to call me a liar here. But when I wrote "Why do I have to wait a week for Dagesh's comments to be deleted? This is a discussion that both bureaucrats are responding to. You quickly deleted Hanna's (a liberal editor) comment, but didn't you see the insults to others? ..... Why didn't you delete Eladati's comment? It's not offensive enough?... Most current admins wouldn't do that and I've never seen Erez Aorez delete something offensive", What I wrote was immediately deleted by Erez Aorez and I was warned "We have zero tolerance for such accusations" and threatened with blocking. When I responded that "It's easier to threaten me with blocking because you were offended, than to warn an editor who called me a liar, maybe I was offended too"? I received another warning by Erez Aorez without explanation, what I wrote was immediately deleted by Erez Aorez, and a double warning was posted on my talk page, as well as a message that if I attack the bureaucrats again I will be blocked. I contacted a bureaucrat Funcs who didn't know what the warning was about, even though the bureaucrat Erez Aorez also signed on her behalf. Erez is unable or unwilling to explain what the warnings are about, here. I fear that the ultimate goal is to have two warnings against me so that when they invent something about me next time, it will give them an excuse to block me. In addition, in response to the request for an explanation Erez Aorez, once again, made sure to remind me that if I dare to criticize the bureaucrats, I will be blocked. Here I am one of the authors of the RFC and also of the reference to you and I did not hide it. That is why I am being treated this way. I ask for your protection against arbitrary blocking. אמא של (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback user: User:Hanay

"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 moved my comment here after it was removed. Hopefully this time it will stay. Hanay (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback user: User:La Nave Partirà

I was asked to put this in the correct spot and putting it here on behalf of La Nave Partirà. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC) I see that the discussion refers to editors who were blocked in the mass blockings and does not refer to other blockings by the same bureaucrat, Garfield.

The editors who were blocked in the mass were an organized group of relatively new editors, that inserted trivial edits in order to gain quickly voting right.

After them started the blocking of veteran editors.

Garfield blocked me on August 12, 2024—well after the mass blocking but as part of the same mindset. He invented claims about me, accused me of actions done by another editor, and quoted me using text he had copied from that editor. He posted the same accusations on both our talk pages, which was bizarre.

What I saw was obsessive behavior, full of hatred toward me (which he expressed openly to others). When presented with evidence, he refused to back down and apologize.

I posted an RFC on Meta about the defamation that was spread about me, but RFC was not the right place to seek actual help.

I was advised to contact the Trust and Safety Team, which I did, but they had no power to intervene. They suggested I appeal to the U4C, which had just begun operating at the time, but I didn’t.

Shortly after Garfield banned me, he was voted out when the elections for bureaucrats were held again. However, his removal made no difference to me; the defamation was traumatic and haunted me for months, it still does,

I don’t want to edit Hebrew Wikipedia again, so I’m not asking for my ban to be lifted; I write first because I believe U4C needs to be told about it, and second, because other editors who were banned by Garfield—or had extreme restrictions imposed on them—may still wish to edit Hebrew Wikipedia. This proposal seems to ignore them. 15:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

• @Sofiblum: Can you please add the involved parties to the table at the top of the page and add the diff that you notified them? Best regards, Luke081515 21:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks Luke, of course I will, I am just rechecking the request before I do that Sofiblum (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC) I tried adding the involved parties and the diffs of the notifications, but the format does not work. Please advise how to do it. Thank you Sofiblum (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Sofiblum there is the table towards the top of the page. If you find that doesn't work for some reason put the names of the editors and the diffs notifying them below it and one of us can move it into table format. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Barkeep49, I put the names and diffs below the table Sofiblum (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  The problem was that the information was inside html comments (the part that looked like <!--ABC -->. All fixed now. Thanks for working this through with us. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Barkeep49 Sofiblum (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• A couple of questions Sofiblum as I read through the meta RfC. I notice the 6 asks at the RfC are different than the 5 asks here. Can you explain the thought process behind that change? איתמראשפר can you explain why you moved all discussion to the talk page? This is not typical from meta RfCs I've seen. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Barkeep49 From our point of view we meant to ask in this case request the same as what we asked for in the RFC. We shortened the text written there following the instructions to write this case as brief as possible. We thought that the ask to guide hewiki community through the process of electing bureaucrats, administrators and checkusers can be included under the general supervision section. Sofiblum (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hello Barkeep49, I'm not used to writing RfCs, so I wouldn't know what is customary and what isn't. At a certain point I realized that the discussion section became twice larger than the RFC itself, and that several users began writing there almost regularly, not always in ways that I considered related to the claims in the RFC. I thought that this steals the focus from the RFC, and makes it harder for readers to follow, so I moved thd discussion section to where I thought is it's natural place: the discussion page. In the celular interface, which I usually use, the discussion page offers some extra perks, like the "reply" button, the ability to collapse a discussion and the reference to the last comment at the top of the page. If you think that I should bring the discussion section back to the main page I'll do it gladly, I just thought it's better this way and wasn't aware that the custom is to keep everything in the main page. Cheers, איתמראשפר (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:Yuri you are not listed among the parties, unless you want to be added to the parties (please let us know) I'm going to move your section to the "other feedback" section. @User:איתמראשפר your reply to User:Yuri will be moved to the talk page, other users are welcome to provide feedback in the ways described in the case page. Of course we will consider comments and replies added to talk page too but the case page is not a general discussion page. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:Guycn2 and User:לובר your replies to User:ארז האורז in their section will be moved to the talk page, as stated above you are welcome to provide feedback in the dedicated section. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the spreadsheet with examples of offensive comments, which is linked in our request, has been updated since we first submitted it Sofiblum (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear committee members, Please pay attention to the offensive anonymous user's response that have been added on the talk page here Sofiblum (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello from my side, I've read a lot of the text from this case already, but not yet all. However, I have already some questions to the people making statements here.

• @User:Sofiblum:
  • In the RfC it was mention that members of the group that hold or held a lot of higher permissions, the consequence of that was biased content. Can you give me a few examples of articles where such a bias was put in, with a link please?
  • The RfC mentions, that one of the new crats announced that they will follow the agenda of the old crats, could you please give me a diff/link to that statement?
  • 2.2.5 in the RfC mentions that in ongoing events people from "the left side" were blocked for editing ongoing events while people from the right side were not. Can you link give me links to a few cases, please?
  • 2.3.7 of the RfC mentions that there were cases where users received more that enough support for getting an admin, but crats decided against, because of concerns. Is there a hewiki rule on this? If so, can you please link to it?
  • The RfC mentioned as well that there was a case where crats said that the community was only allowed to submit arguments against someone getting appointed, not giving support. Can you link to such a vote where this happened?

More questions might follow. Best regards, Luke081515 21:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Luke081515: following are answers to your questions:

1. This chapter in the RFC details a few examples of articles where a bias was put. Some of the biases were corrected with the entry of more liberal editors to hewiki and some still exist today. We can list more examples if needed.
2. Here the new bureaucrat Erez HaOrez expresses support for the actions of the previous bureaucrats. He writes that he supports continuing the blocks, without expressing opposition to the way the blocks were carried out – no evidence presented and no prior warnings.
3. Chapter 3 in this case request ("content vandalism") details a few examples for selective restrictions on editing ongoing events/political topics that were directed toward editors perceived as having liberal views. Examples include a request for mandatory mentorship due to editing political topics here and a block from all pages "for not finding a mentor within 10 days" here; threats of blocking here; a "recommendation" to not edit articles about current events here; pressure on a veteran liberal editor to withdraw his candidacy for system administrator because of his political views here (He did indeed withdraw his candidacy). On the other hand, editors perceived as having conservative views are free to edit on current affairs.
4. According to the rule in hewiki detailed here, while support from 60% of eligible voting editors is a necessary condition for an editor to become an administrator, it is not sufficient. The final decision remains at the bureaucrats' discretion, who may deny administrative permissions even when a candidate has achieved the required 60% support threshold.
5. Here is the link to the discussion where the bureaucrats allowed the community to submit only arguments against the appointment and not arguments in favor.

Best regards, Sofiblum (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: after a clarification discussion that opened on February 17 regarding user: Yaakov (משתמש: יעקב), he was put to an administrator vote regarding setting the duration of his block and it was determined that he will be blocked indefinitely. 12 out of 31 administrators in Hebrew Wikipedia participated in the vote, and 11 of them voted to block him indefinitely. My colleagues and I who submitted this case request believe there is a connection between the submission of this complaint and the decision made regarding the block, which has not been made until now despite repeated evidence of problems in his conduct. Thank you, Sofiblum (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: User:Yona Bandlak (משתמש:יונה בנדלאק), a checker and a system administrator in hewiki, calls to block without time limit all those who were involved in filing this case request here Sofiblum (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Geagea, a system administrator, calls to block all users that signed the RFC here Sofiblum (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

A week ago, a discussion was opened in hewiki "Village Pump" regarding this case request. User: Yona Bendlak (משתמש: יונה בנדלאק), a system administrator and a checker, wrote that the appeal to Meta was "an improper act that violates several rules in Hebrew Wikipedia" (but did not specify any such rule) and that "after the committee rejects their claims, everyone involved in this appeal should be blocked indefinitely" here. User: Geagea, a system administrator, wrote that "users who signed the false document that spreads libel about Hebrew Wikipedia should be blocked" here. As mentioned, a week has passed since these responses were written, but no other permission holder, including all administrators and the currently active bureaucrat Erez HaOrez, has responded to these statements, thus normalizing these claims as legitimate to make and expressing a tacit agreement. As we wrote in the case request, we were forced to focus it on a reasonable number of specific individuals involved, but this event illustrates our claim that consistently offensive and harassing responses are not well handled by all permission holders in hewiki. It also demonstrates the threats directed at editors who dared to file the RFC and case request or to sign it. [User:Sofiblum|Sofiblum]] (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have previously referred to the call from system admin and checkuser user: Yona Bendlak to block indefinitely the editors who were involved in submitting the RFC and Case Request to Meta (here). A few days ago Yona submitted a request to extend his system admin permissions (here). In the discussion following his request, many editors opposed extending his permissions, due to his call for a block, but Yona did not take back his words (here). In addition, no other permission holders in hewiki - checkusers, system admins or bureaucrats - criticized him for his call and many of them actively supported him. Until now, two of the four remaining checkusers and most of the system admins (15 of them) have supported extending his permissions.

We believe that the broad support from permission holders in hewiki for Yona despite his call to block the editors involved in the RFC is another indication of hewiki's departure from the foundation's values and code of conduct. Threatening to block editors for submitting a case request to the foundation's supervisory bodies creates a chilling effect and can prevent reporting of harmful behaviors. It demonstrates a group dynamics where certain positions become internal consensus, even if they are problematic from an external perspective and a closed organizational culture that views external appeals as a kind of "betrayal" of the community.

As we wrote above, we believe that external intervention from global Wikimedia is necessary for hewiki to return to operating in accordance with the global code of conduct policy.Sofiblum (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Sophiblum is doing exactly what I wrote is happening in this complaint. She is spreading falsehoods and half-truths with the aim of portraying Hebrew Wikipedia in a dark light. I clarified my position, but Sophiblum decided to present only half of what I write. For example, the "betrayal" was written by another Wikipedian, and immediately when it came up, I clarified that I don't agree with him. Sophiblum decided to bring this up as if it were my opinion, even though I explicitly clarified that it is not my opinion.

Sophiblum, if you believe something improper is happening on HE-Wikipedia, you are welcome to complain. However, if you submit a false complaint, do not expect it to be received with understanding. - yona B. (D) 16:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@User:יונה בנדלאק, I have attached diffs for each of my claims so the committee members can see for themselves what you wrote and decide whether what I wrote is "falsehood" or truth. Anyway If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll see that the word 'betrayal' is referring to the organizational culture that has developed in hewiki where appealing to an external entity is perceived as betrayal.

Yes just like you wrote - me and my colleagues who wrote the RFC believe something improper is happening on hewiki and after we tried to find solutions within the local framework of hewiki, we saw that the system blindly protects itself, without willingness for self-examination and correction, and therefore we submitted the RFC and this case request to the global foundation team that is designed to handle exactly such cases Sofiblum (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Following the details written above, the bureaucrats decided to extend Yona Bendlak's system admin permissions, despite his call to block the complainants to Meta indefinitely (here). They presented his call as a legitimate "expression of opinion" and in an act of false symmetry, they equated it to what we wrote in this case request, in which we asked you to examine violations of the rule of conduct and consider removing the permissions of those who were involved in these violations. The fact that the filing of this case request was clearly done according to the Wiki rules of conduct did not receive any attention. They wrote, "This is his personal opinion, and just as a person has the right to support blocking people mentioned in the case request, so does Yona have the right to think that the signatories of the complaint should be blocked." The message conveyed to the community is, of course, a warning not to dare complain against those with permissions.Sofiblum (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I am very concerned by the idea that using a community approved dispute resolution process to file a serious (non-frivolous) complaint would be grounds for a block. However, I do not think such a call should automatically prevent someone from renewing their admin permission. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I agree that such a statement is not supposed to automatically prevent renewal of permissions, but it is quite disturbing. The fact that it's not just rhetorics but a clear statement of intent (Yona bluntly wrote "I will indeed act to promote such a block" [here]) is even more disturbing, and the fact that not even one permission holder in hewiki pointed out that blocking users for exercising their right to turn to U4C is problematic and intimidating, is just another indication of the general attitude of hewiki admins and bureaucrats towards Wikimedia Foundation, its institutions, rules and standards. Sofiblum (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

As the U4C examines the question of whether or not there is a culture of threat and intimidation on hewiki that would violate the UCoC, I think this is one piece of evidence for the committee to consider. But in the same way that I don't want to penalize the speech of people raising concerns on meta, I think there are limits to how I would want to penalize/hold hewiki responsible for the comments of one administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

We trust your judgment of course, thanks. Sofiblum (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the investigation and update. We are happy that you found the June mass blocks were not a systematic failure. It's important to note that hewiki community was not updated with information that would allow it to feel confident that these blocks were not a systematic failure: There was no transparency toward the community -The blocked users were not warned, were not informed of the accusations against them, were not presented with any evidence and did not have a possibility to appeal the blocks. Sofiblum (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

An editor who prefers to remain anonymous asked me to upload a chart that he prepared based on the blocked user data that appears in the block log attached to this case. The chart he prepared includes all blocks from June until the end of the term of the previous bureaucrats (two of the blocks were made in August). The chart (here) illustrates visually that the general profile of the right-leaning/conservative blocked editors is: newly-joined, with less than 4000 edits overall and also relatively less frequent edits during the 17 months prior to the blockage. In contrast, a group of the left-leaning/liberal blocked editors are mature editors, with more than 4000 edits overall and more frequent activity during the 17 months prior to the blockage. Thanks, Sofiblum (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

At some point I will really dive into this data and confirm it's true. But for now I'm going to presume it is. What conclusion are you suggesting I take from this? Because the idea that left leaning and right leaning collaboration groups play out differently does not, on its own, strike me as a problem and there could be any number of explanations. For instance it could be that hewiki was disproportionately left leaning and right leaning editors are playing "catch-up" or that the way the social networks in these two groups is just different. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that the wave of blocks began when the bureaucrats found signs of active bias groups within Wikipedia pages (this is what I understand from the U4C investigation and I also understand that you intend to check these blocks on an individual basis). We believe that the bureaucrats exploited the legitimacy for severe measures that they received from the community in order to "get rid" of veteran and significant editors whom they and their associates perceived as a threat or as an "opposition" (either based on their votes against bureaucrats or due to political views). In these cases, which happened after the big wave of blocks on June 2nd, there was no clear and reliable evidence of rule violations by the editors. The editors La Nave Partirà and myself (sofiblum) were not blocked on grounds of participation in bias groups, but based on other claims, which we find misleading. The editors IthamarEshpar, Danny-w, and Hila Livne were blocked based on "evidence" of screenshots from private WhatsApp groups, whose reliability and legitimacy of use are questionable. Thus, a situation was created where blocks from the conservative/right side of the political map are of relatively new/minimally active editors, and some of the blocks from the liberal/left side of the map are of veteran and significant editors who, in the bureaucrats' perception, posed a threat to them. In the RFC we showed that there is a long term political takeover of hewiki by right wing forces (here) and that there is selective enforcement - bureaucrats and admins give preferential treatment to conservative and religious editors who are close to them, while at the same time they are being strict, sometimes even to the point of persecution, with liberal editors who have been marked by them (here). Thanks, Sofiblum (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

First, we want to thank the committee for the plan to implement an appeals mechanism for the mass blocks. This is one of the processes we hoped would emerge from the investigation you conducted, and we greatly appreciate it. @Barkeep49: the appeals process you propose sounds very fair. Regarding the local appeals committee, since no such mechanism currently exists in hewiki, we count on your recommendation for the structure of such a mechanism and how it should be created, based on your experience from other Wikipedias. As we wrote in the case request, the administrators operating in hewiki function as a relatively homogeneous group, and we are concerned that a committee comprised of them would not be open enough to hearing diverse opinions and would automatically lead to the same conclusions that were reached in the past. We suggest considering including in the appeals committee specifically editors who do not have bureaucrat, administrator or checkuser permissions, similar to a jury that is selected from the broader community. Thank you Sofiblum (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: since Hebrew Wikipedia does not have an appeals committee, please advise as to how you think the local appeals process should be conducted and to whom you suggest that blocked editors should turn in order to appeal. Would you recommend that they send messages to the bureaucrats on their talk pages? Or do you think a permanent appeals committee should be established (a process that is expected to be long and complex)? Sofiblum (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

As I indicated elsewhere I don't think we can setup a permanent appeals committee. We are still discussing various options of how the appeals might work. I expect we will vote publicly so feedback can be given at that time as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand, thank you @Barkeep49:. I asked because I wasn't sure whether we are expected to do something active at this stage to advance such an appeal process on hewiki. Sofiblum (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: a month has passed since you proposed the motion and requested feedback, and since then we have not seen any response from senior permission holders on hewiki. We would be grateful if you could update us on whether any developments have occurred with the case request during this period, whether there are dialogues being conducted with you that are not public, and whether and how we can advance this matter from our side. Throughout this entire period, there are editors who continue to be blocked and express great frustration with the situation. We noticed that user: קלאוזביץ who first approached the bureaucrats requesting unblocking in July 2024 and again in January 2025, was unblocked this week (the only one among the blocked users), with draconian restrictions on his activity in the project (3 years without voting rights). It's unclear why only this editor was unblocked and why these restrictions were imposed on him. Without intervention from your side, it seems the pace of unblocking will continue to be very slow (if any), unexplained and not transparent, and therefore we need your involvement. Within the framework of the motion you proposed, you raised the possibility of appealing to the U4C appeals committee in cases where the local appeal committee declined an appeal. Since in my own case (blocking based on a demand for mandatory mentorship) an appeal was already submitted to the bureaucrats by user: אסף השני on January 16, 2025 and they declined it here, I am wondering whether I can submit an appeal regarding my blocking to your committee? Thanks, Sofiblum (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

User: Gilgamesh, one of the editors who is a party to this case request, asked this week to receive viewing permissions for IP addresses of temporary accounts. I wrote on my talk page (the only hewiki page where I can edit since I am blocked) that due to his long history of harassing editors (detailed here), I recommend carefully considering whether it's advisable to grant him this permission, and I tagged the bureaucrats, but the permission was granted to him and what I wrote on the matter remained unanswered Sofiblum (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, for pointing out recent events, and for your quite reasonable pointing out about us acting too slowly. With the election results now certified I hope we can move forward with a version of the motion in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal for the appeal process regarding the blocks. It sounds fair and I support it. I only have two questions regarding the process: 1. What will be the procedure for editors who have already appealed their block in hewiki, it was reviewed by the new bureaucrats and they decided against it? Should they submit an appeal in hewiki again or should they submit an appeal directly to U4C? 2. What about editors who were released from the block but with draconian restrictions, such as a ban on participating in votes for 3 years? Should these editors submit an appeal regarding the restrictions in hewiki or should they submit an appeal directly to U4C? Thanks, Sofiblum (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

1. Good question. If this passes we'll need to offer some guidance. 2. Are we just discussing the one editor or are there more? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

There are at least two more editors that were released with restrictions. They are listed on the list of blocked editors (details in the last column). Sofiblum (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that the committee members read the discussion that developed following the announcement written by Barkeep on the Hebrew Wikipedia's Village Pump page (in which he requested feedback regarding the proposed appeal mechanism). The discussion reflects the selective enforcement we referred to in the case request. User: Bikoret (a former bureaucrat) called the case request writers "disturbed", and User:Yuri wrote additional defamatory statements about them. Neither of them received any response to their words from system administrators or bureaucrats. In contrast, the words of the User: Ima Shel, one of the case request writers who responded to Yuri, were deleted by one of the system administrators. Sofiblum (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Sofiblum, once again you're misrepresenting the facts in a way that appears designed to mislead committee members who don’t speak Hebrew and haven’t followed the full context of this case over time.

Bikoret did not call the writers of the case request "disturbed" (a more accurate translation of the word in this context would be "troublemakers"). He referred more broadly to all editors, whether from the political right or left, who have joined Hebrew Wikipedia in recent years solely to advance a political agenda. Anyone who reads his full comment in Hebrew can clearly understand this from the context. Misrepresenting his words to frame him as attacking "the request writers" is simply dishonest.

Regarding my own comments, you accuse me of making defamatory statements, yet you curiously avoid quoting even one example. What exactly did I say that was defamatory? If you're referring to my criticism of the claim in the RFC that Hebrew Wikipedia was “taken over by a nationalist religious group,” then yes, I called that claim a lie, because that is exactly what it is. Even the U4C, despite its diplomatic wording, clearly rejected this central accusation.

Unlike my comments, which directly addressed the issues under discussion, Ima Shel engaged in pure ad hominem attacks. She’s done this before, repeatedly, including baseless accusations of misogyny against me and other editors she disagrees with. She allowed Itamar, a user declared a troll and banned from Hebrew Wikipedia, to use her account. She pushed politically biased edits, and there’s strong circumstantial evidence connecting her to the left-wing canvassing group, the one you and your friends continue to deny exists.

And yet, she is not blocked. That fact alone undermines your narrative of "selective enforcement". In reality, what we see is that enforcement in Hebrew Wikipedia has been extraordinarily restrained and forgiving, especially toward those aligned with the ideological camp of the case request authors.

Stop trying to gaslight this committee. The record speaks for itself. Yuri (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Since Yuri is not an involved party, I'm not sure he may write in this section. I guess someone who's authorized will move it soon to the talk page or wherever they see fit, in which case I'd be grateful if my comment will be moved there as well - but I can't leave some of his comments unanswered.

• I was amazed by Yuri's audacious attempt to describe Sofiblum's quote of the ex-bureaucrat as purposely misleading, and draw the "you guys don't speak Hebrew so it's her word against mine" card. Personally, I thought that Sofi's translation of the ex-bureaucrat's word was too soft, as "deranged" seemed more fitting to the context, so I consulted with Chat GPT about the most accurate translation, and he suggested "the crazies", "the lunatics", "the psychos", or (what he described as "more neutral"): "the disturbed ones" or "the unhinged". So basically, what Yuri has done here is exactly what he wrongly accused Sofiblum of doing: he translated the word in a misleading manner, hoping that noone will check. I wonder what this teaches us about his other accusations. I also wonder why an ex-bureaucrat would get away with calling other editors "the crazies" without anyone calming him down.
• Yuri seems to be quoting a claim from the RFC which says that hewiki was "taken over by a nationalist religious group" (the quotation mark matter, as they insinuate that this is an actual quote from the RFC) - but you're all invited to search the actual RFC pages and see for yourself that this phrase doesn't appear there. Heck, even the term "nationalist religious group" isn't to be found anywhere in the RFC or in the U4C case! Is this a "quoting accident" or yet another attempt to mislead the readers, trusting they won't check what's really written? You tell me.
• Yuri blames Ima Shell for allowing "a user declared a troll" to "use her account". What he's not telling you, is that all Ima Shell asked me to do was to paste some comments she DMed me when she had technical difficulties accessing Wikipedia, and that it happened BEFORE I was declared a troll (which was also done unlawfully). So here again Yuri is presenting a partial image, and chooseing his words carefully to create a misleading idea about the turn of events.

I apologize once again for having to refute Yuri's claims one by one like this, but I couldn't leave these distortions and half truths just hanging there. Thanks for your time and attention, IthamarEshpar איתמראשפר (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Update regarding our complaint about user: Gilgamesh. This week, a request for blocking him was submitted by User: Asaf Hashani, based on several edit wars for which he took no responsibility. Once again, the discussion was closed without a summary by a permission holder and without imposing any sanctions on him here. Consistently, Gilgamesh receives 'protection' from sanctions by bureaucrats and operators, despite repeated complaints about his problematic conduct, which is documented in here. Sofiblum (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Having done a quick review of the policy, I'm not actually sure edit warring is a UCoC violation. So if it's not a violation, a decision on how to enforce a policy/guideline about it is beyond our jurisidiction. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, Our complaint regarding Gilgamesh does not focus on specific edit wars or other violations, it's rather about the fact that Gilgamesh has been harassing other editors and violating the rules for years, as we detailed in this document with links, yet receives a kind of 'protection' from those with authority and is never sanctioned, while other editors receive sanctions for similar violations. The recent discussion is just another example of this protection that he enjoys. Sofiblum (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the appeals process regarding the blocks. I'm going back to the two questions I asked earlier about the process: 1. What will be the procedure for editors who have already appealed their block in hewiki, it was reviewed by the new bureaucrats and they decided against it? Should they submit an appeal in hewiki again or should they submit an appeal directly to U4C? 2. What about editors who were released from the block but with draconian restrictions, such as a ban on participating in votes for 3 years? Should these editors submit an appeal regarding the restrictions in hewiki or should they submit an appeal directly to U4C? Thanks Sofiblum (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for re-raising these questions. We owe you answers to them, but need to do more discussion first. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sofiblum Users should submit an appeal again on hewiki and editors who were unblocked with conditions can appeal on hewiki and then appeal to us and while we will consider such appeals, we may be less likely to take action than for people who remain blocked. I also see that a process has been established on hewiki to handle any appeals. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Sofiblum (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The bureaucrats published a request to submit appeals through a Google Form that goes directly to them and is not transparent to the entire community, as is customary on Wikipedia. We feel uncomfortable with this approach as it goes against Wikipedia's principles of openness and community oversight. User:Imashel approached the bureaucrats requesting that the entire process be transparent (here), but they avoided providing a clear response. We would appreciate if you could find a way to make this process more transparent to the community, as we believe this will increase the community's trust in the process.Thanks, Sofiblum (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Update - Following the request for transparency, the bureaucrats have established a dedicated page to keep the community informed about the appeals process for the blocks. The page does not contain the content of editors' appeals submitted to the bureaucrats, but it does provide a list of the editors who appealed and the current status of each appeal Sofiblum (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I submitted an appeal to the local appeals committee on hewiki and the response written by the bureaucrat Funcs on the dedicated page for the case is: "The block is not related to the discussed case and therefore no discussion will take place within the framework of the current appeals process" (see link below). The major waves of blocks took place on June 2, 2024 and June 9, 2024, and my block was carried out on June 15, 2024. I connect my block directly to the discussed case and to the climate that was created following it on hewiki, within which the bureaucrats received tailwind from many editors to carry out blocks. As I detailed previously in this response, we claim that the 'enabling' climate was exploited by the bureaucrats for ill purposes in order to "get rid" of several veteran editors, whom they perceived as representing different positions from them or as 'opponents' to them, without justified reasons. Against the background of these matters and since an appeal that was submitted regarding my case in the past (by editor Asaf Hashani here under "Cancellation of sofiblum's mandatory mentorship") was not accepted and now it has been decided not to discuss my current appeal at all, I request to move to the next stage and submit an appeal to the U4C committee. I am awaiting your guidance on the matter. Thank you. Sofiblum (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the points I made in my last comment. One of the claims we raised in the case request is of abuse of power by the former bureaucrats, and one major example for this claim was the mass blocking of 59 editors without prior warnings and without presenting evidence. We included the list of 59 editors who were blocked in this context, including editors who were blocked with claims of suspicion of biasing discussions and votes, but also editors who were blocked with different claims. The U4C committee announced an appeals process for all editors who were blocked in the mass blockings, but the (current) bureaucrats opened an appeals page which they call "Vote and Discussion Bias Affair 2024/Appeals Process" and they refuse to consider an appeal that is part of the mass blocking but where the argument for blocking was different than biasing votes and discussions. We are asking you that the appeals process that was opened will include all blocks that were carried out under the mass blocking, regardless of what the argument for blocking was. Sofiblum (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

(For some reason I can't put the link to the appeals page using alternative text, so I'm putting it here as a regular link: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ויקיפדיה:פרשת_הטיית_הצבעות_ודיונים_2024/הליך_הערעורים

Please feel free to replace it with alternative text). Sofiblum (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I see that the local appeals committee of hewiki has finished responding to all the editors who have appealed so far. Can you please update us regarding the status of the appeals to the U4C instance and regarding the next stage in your handling of the case request? Thanks, Sofiblum (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I am tagging the committee members to ensure you've seen the question I posted here a few weeks ago: @U4C. Thank you Sofiblum (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Appealing Process

Hi User:Barkeep49 and U4C members,
After nearly a month of enabling an easy appeal process and rechecking cases, ארז האורז and I believe the process has reached a plateau, as no new appeals were received in the past week.
To bring this matter to a clear close for the community, we propose setting a formal deadline for any remaining appeals (e.g., a week from now, perhaps August 28th). This would signal the community that the saga is behind us so we can focus on healing, rebuilding trust, and fostering a more united community rather than divisions along political lines.
This process has also been resource-intensive for us as bureaucrats. A deadline would help us balance our time and focus on other parts of the role.
Thank you for your consideration,
ארז האורז and Funcs (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that helping the hewiki bring this matter to a close is important. We are, admittedly, not done with our full investigation into hewiki and in some ways the part we're on - looking into the remaining claims of problems - is the trickiest, hence our slow forward progress. To help me make an informed decision on this, can one of you tell me how many appeals have been submitted? The U4C has received two, one of which was declined as out of scope and one of which remains under consideration. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, we received 19 appeals, all documented here: ויקיפדיה:פרשת הטיית הצבעות ודיונים 2024/הליך הערעורים. If you’d like me to translate this page into English, please let me know. Funcs (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

So as I've thought about this a bit further, I remain open to "sunsetting" the current process both to provide closure to the community and to lessening the work on crats. However, I do think the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines prohibits blocks with no chance of appeal and I don't know if that is satisfied by a couple month window where an appeal was possible. So I'm wondering if we could replace this process with something else, while still acknowledging that appeals are possible. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Since some of the appeals were rejected by the bureaucrats at the Hebrew Wikipedia, those who wish to do so should be allowed to file an appeal here. I saw some of the responses, and in my opinion and that of other editors at the Hebrew Wikipedia, the bureaucrats' response was wrong. Thanks Hanay (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, will we be receiving updates on the status of the appeals currently being handled by the committee, as well as on the final decisions regarding them? Yuri (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

They are under discussion. We haven't thought about how we would announce results yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

• I am inclined to accept this case to open an investigation, but first I want to do a complete re-read of the Meta RfC (I read it as it came in, though admittedly I also skimmed some of the report at that time and likely will do so again until/if we reach the investigation phase). However, while I do want to give this case full consideration, based on what I have read and understood to date it is not clear to me that there is an ideological takeover of the project given that people from multiple sides have been sanctioned. Even if this is true, this does not mean there aren't UCoC violations worth addressing, it would just mean that there is not a systemic failure. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• I am publicly noting this comment I made on hewiki where there has been some discussion of this case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• The U4C has decided to continue focusing on the mass blocks for the next stage of the case. I am considering proposing the motion below. I welcome feedback from parties, other editors, as well as my colleagues.
  1. All people blocked in the mass blockings are eligible to appeal
  2. The first step should be a local hewiki appeal. <details needed: is this the crats, CUs, admin, or some combination?>
  3. If an appeal is accepted nothing further. For any appeals declined it will automatically be sent to the U4C for review.
  4. A U4C member screens for reasonableness (some of the blocks are clearly correct so no need to waste time). If an appeal is reasonable, it is considered by 3 UCoC members (1 of the 3 can be the person who did the initial screen but doesn't have to be). At least 2 of the 3 need to agree to accept an appeal for the person to be unblocked.

  Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Accept votes

• I don't normally vote accept this quickly, because I want to consider more feedback. However, because of the Meta RfC I think I've had the chance to consider lots of feedback before this case reached us. I see an investigation focused on two (related) topics:
  1. Acting in our role as an appeals body on whether or not the blocks were reasonably applied. We are able to consider private/confidential information that may not be publicly appropriate.
  2. Investigating the allegations of failure to enforce the UCoC and whether or not there has been a systemic failure.
  • The U4C is the only group that can do the systemic failure investigation and we are also well equipped to consider the private evidence and so I think we should definitely accept this case and open an investigation. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Barkeep here. As this is a case that should be investigating, also regarding possible systemic failures, I'm accepting here, as we need time for deeper investigation. Luke081515 07:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• This case provides several questions to be investigated. --Ghilt (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Per Barkeep. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• After reading the RFC I agree with Barkeep. --Civvì (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• I think sufficient credible concerns have been raised that would warrant our investigation. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• agree --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Motions

Blocks

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

✅ Passed Motion — Date: 2025-05-16

---

The U4C has decided to break up this case into several parts and will be focusing on one particular part or area at a time. For the first part, the U4C has investigated whether the June 2024 mass blocks of users was a systemic failure. The U4C has concluded:

1. The blocks were made based on evidence and with good intentions.
2. The blocks did not target any particular side politically but were instead based on the evidence the crats had.
3. The June blocks are not a systemic failure.

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 or were otherwise wrong and the U4C may have further questions, recommendations, and/or actions. The U4C has also not concluded its investigation into other allegations made in this case and may still find there were systemic failures to enforce the UCoC. The U4C will provide its next update on the case in approximately 3 weeks.

Support

• Luke081515 19:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• I want to express my appreciation to the hewiki crats for their time and cooperation in our investigation so far. While I am not sure yet if I agree with everything they did, I am very sure that they acted in a thoughtful and responsible manner to an incredibly challenging situation. I also feel like it was a situation where doing nothing would likely have resulted in a systemic failure and so some action was needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Barkeep49 --Civvì (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• --Ghilt (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Barkeep49 --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Appeals

✅ Passed Motion — Date: 2025-07-24

---

1. All people blocked in the mass blockings are eligible to appeal under this process.
2. The first step should be a local hewiki appeal. Any bureaucrat and checkuser may accept or deny the appeal or they may delegate an appeal to be heard by an administrator or the entire community. When declining an appeal the reviewing person may also supply additional context to the U4C to consider about that editor's past history.
3. If an appeal is accepted nothing further. For any appeals declined, the person declining should send a link of the local appeal to the U4C. The appeal will then be reviewed by the U4C.
4. After receiving an appeal the U4C will acknowledge it. If the U4C has not acknowledged it with-in 2 days of the appeal being declined, the person appeal is encouraged to contact the U4C directly at u4cwikimediaorg.
5. A U4C member will screen for reasonableness as some of the blocks are clearly correct. If an appeal is reasonable, it will be considered by 3 U4C members (1 of the 3 can be the person who did the initial screen but doesn't have to be). At least 2 of the 3 need to agree to accept an appeal for the person to be unblocked; they may also refer an appeal to be considered by the whole committee.
6. If an appeal isn't decided on hewiki within 30 days, the person filing the appeal may go directly to the U4C.

Support

• I think this is a good approach to go through the blocks and have a clear appeal process. I don't think that there is often a overturning decision by the U4C, but it ensures a fair process. Luke081515 21:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• While I understand the desire of some to have more of this decision making remain with hewiki, the various factors at play make me think that the final appeal being to the U4C is the appropriate balance of local control and external verification/validation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• This adds checks & balances and will hopefully rebuild trust between the conflicting parties. --Ghilt (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• I think this is a clear and fair process. --Civvì (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Seems like a reasonable approach. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• sensible way forward. dbeef (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with others that this seems like a reasonable way forward.-BRP ^ever 01:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Agree, although most of blocks are clear but I think some users maybe have a chance to appeal.-Ibrahim.ID (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

• The filing of this request has been duly noted. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 21:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• The case was accepted by the U4C and is now in the Investigation-Phase. Involved parties and other users have now one month time to submit more evidence. The U4C will review it. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 14:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• The U4C decided to get checkuser-log-access to hewiki to also investigate of the use of the checkuser-tool related to the case described here. You can read the announcement here. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 14:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• The investigation phase is over, the U4C will review the existing evidence. Please note that due the high case load as well as the complexity of this case this could take longer. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• An update about the case investigation by the U4C was published. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 21:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)