Requests for comment/Endless list of sock puppets in the Hebrew Wikipedia and strange rules of a bureaucrat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.


Hebrew Wiki pagesEdit

Users involvedEdit

Sock puppetsEdit

In the Hebrew Wikipedia there is a list of very specific and cruel sock puppets. Their declared aim is to make the He WP as they want. It includes applications to administrators to remove Users' permissions. User T&T ("I did not remove information. I did not remove information.") applied for removal of King G.A permissions (via user "The McKist" (המקיסט)), and Elastic Spoon ("The collective hypocrisy here made me tired.") applied for limiting my permissions. All the time new sock puppets of this kind are coming, make endless discussions with the most experienced users of the Hebrew Wikipedia, and draw the Hebrew Wikipedia to drainage. In other words: They destroy the atmosphere of writing articles. They also erase a lot of content from the articles, usually without any edit summary. They vandalise both Hebrew Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedians. There are norms of editing on the Hebrew Wikipedia: A stable version, an edit summary, an editing following the talk page of an article, a civilized talk. These sock puppets destroy all of it, and simply horrify the most experienced users.

BureaucratEdit

The Hebrew bureaucrat ביקורת wrote on my user's talk page in the Hebrew Wikipedia on January 17, 2019: "If you notice that one of them happens to be on your way and the business is not going to a good place, just 'cut' away. Do not confront them, but contact David Shay (one of the first Hebrew Wikipedians, Dorian) to consider what should be done".

Somehow it was changed into a rule, in spite of there was no decision nor voting on it. On January 8, 2020 ביקורת repeated and wrote to me: "The next time you argue with another editor about his edits or your edits, you will be blocked. We have no ability to manage these arguments or contain them."

But these sock puppets drive the editors out of their mind, not me. I have never written even a single word of what these puppets wrote. For example, the user "Lucy's cousin once removed" added "Yahweh" to her user page for intentionally irritating her religious opponents, who objected changing the general gender in the He WP. The Hebrew language discriminates between men and women, and the Hebrew rule was that referring men included women. The puppet made a war against it, because she was an internet troll. ביקורת ignored it, in spite of it repeated endlessly with every kind of this puppet. The simplest thing was to declare one puppet as a troll, check the rest of the puppets and block all of them. ביקורת did not do it, but limited me from discussing in talk pages and even from undoing edits of registered users, in spite of most of the edits of the registered users which I undid, were these sock puppets.

ביקורת also wrote: "Hence to the other complainants about the operation of elastic spoon (one of the puppets, Dgw), This discussion was opened as a clarification of another editor's conduct towards her, and I intend to archive it after extraction. Any argument dealing with Elastic Spoon should be conducted in its appropriate place, and if it is not specific – on its talk page. The inquiry page is for cases where we have lost the ability to conduct the debate as adults with the help of some friends and we are forced to approach to receive more significant relief."

I even appealed to ביקורת, but on May 12, 2020 he dismissed my appeal.

Therefore I wrote here, due to a recommendation which I received from a certain WP team.

ConclusionEdit

ביקורת has to withdraw his decision about me, because he did not have any mandate to make this decision, especially when there were a lot of sock puppets which he did not control, and these puppets made a much higher damage than me during a whole year. Dgw (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I'm bureaucrat in hewiki, and I would like to address the topics Dorain mention in the above discussion:
  1. Claim of sock puppet use in hewiki and how to handle them - I'm not sure I understand what do you ask here, but he:Special:Contribs/Lucy's_cousin_once_removed was blocked few months ago for few days and she isn't active since then (same for some other claimed sock puppets). If the claim is about existing, active sock-puppets, please raise your concerns in sockpuppet investigations page in hewiki, and based on evidences CheckUsers can better define the next steps.
  2. A call to re-consider a bureaucrat decision related to Dorain following an edit conflict with sock-puppets - Dorian you are contributing to Wikipedia in different topics, and this is appreciated. However, there were more than few cases where you get into long conflicts with editors, and getting to resolve those conflicts everytime is very time consuming for the community. In the discussion you referred to, he:Special:Diff/27032035, this was a bureaucrat call asking you to take a step back when getting to edit conflicts, and you should rather ask someone else to get into the discussions when you get to conflicts, otherwise you will get blocked - this call wasn't not based only on edit conflicts with with sock-puppet, but longer history, as was explained also by בריאן earlier in that discussion you referred to. Having said that, I believe that since than, you got better in collaborating with other editors, and this decision can be reconsidered and soften - you will not get blocked on any small conflict, but if sysops or bureaucrats will see you get into conflicts with many editors again this will re-evaluated.
Thanks, eranroz (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Eranroz for your nice reply. I hope that tagging you is not essential, as I guess that you follow the topic.
The issue of the sock puppet was not solved, as it was described here. The user "Lira" (Pound), who was one of the puppets, threatened both Niv and me in a vote. To Niv he wrote: "As Eladti wrote, there may be no more room for this venture" (Recommended articles). To me he wrote: "I was sure he was cynical until I saw he voted in favor". "He" instead of "Dorian" is a violation of וק:כה as well as the words "cynical" and "voted in favor". My vote is none of Lira's business. Even User Ben Adriel, who was against the article as a recommended one, wrote to Niv: "It would have been desirable for her (Lira) to moderate her statements" and "The wording was excessive".
In a nutshell, it should not be continued.
Regarding me, there were three levels.
1. The first level was my former user name. I wrote an article about a personage, had to upload an image and chose a user name of the article which I wrote. As a result, other users called me by the name of the article instead of my user name. The user David Shay permitted me to correct it, but other users were not satisfied. They insisted their right to address me as they wished. Here there is an example. I asked ביקורת to hide it, but he refused (on May 10, 2020). ביקורת claimed that it was my user name, but it was not.
In the end, I replaced my user name.
2. The second level was disability. In the hewiki there was a low tolerance to disability. It may be seen in this discussion. Lira pushed itself also to this discussion, because it was a troll, nothing else.
In this issue I generally took ביקורת words: "Back off!"
3. The third level was aggressive editors like Hedgehog (User:קיפודנחש) and Ethan. Hedgehog used a lot of words which should not to be used, and WMF knew these words. Ethan canvassed his discussions, alongside with throwing other users off from the articles' talk pages, wrote to me: "Who asked you at all?" and an administrator (Dovno) warned him. As a result, Ethan used my former user name, and a second administrator (The Eighth Note) warned him again. Ethan did it to three other users at least: Hello513, Senior Baron and The Flying Horse. The result of Ethan's behavior is that MMDW is a dead whale, and does not have any 2019 winners.
Hedgehog urged ביקורת and בריאן to limit me from participating Hewiki (Hedgehog, 16:18, 8 January 2020 (IST)), in spite of Hedgehog wrote to בריאן and ביקורת afterwards: "I did not follow him and his behavior. Bottom line – your question reveals that I probably made a mistake in understanding the things you and the ביקורת said. (Hedgehog, 10:21, 9 January 2020 (IST))"
Here I remind that the decision of ביקורת and בריאן was made by an application of a sock puppet. Hedgehog did not apply nor Ethan. The sock puppet applied against undoing her edits. A single undoing is legitimate, and every user may undo an edit of another user. It is the base of Wikipedia. A repeated undoing is an edit war, but not the first undoing. When the user is a sock puppet, an elevated awareness is desired. You may see the discussions of all the sock puppets against the user whose name was King G.A. Nobody would say that King was me, but all the sock puppets confronted him against undoing their edits. Why did not Hedgehog request ביקורת and בריאן to limit King? Here I have to add that User T&T, one of the sock puppets, did succeed to remove the permissions of King.
In conclusion, the decision of ביקורת regarding me – is not valid. His decision is based upon an application of a sock puppet, and was urged by Hedgehog, in spite of Hedgehog did not have any real argument, as he clearly admitted it.
The sock puppets are continually going into conflicts with veteran HeWiki editors, including HeWiki administrators (User Blue Horizon, for example) and it is clearly written everywhere in the HeWiki, also in these days. It goes almost a year and drives the HeWiki editors out of their balance. I did not raise any application because ביקורת and בריאן prohibited me from doing it. בריאן also requested me to remove my application for blocking Ethan (16:37, 10 November 2019 (IST)). Also, David Shay wrote to בריאן that he was too stiff to me: "To me this is another example of the unreasonable rigidity in relation to BE. David Shay, 19:40, 29 January 2018 (IST)". Dgw (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello again @ערן: and @ביקורת: As I have said, the internet troll endlessly goes in its destructive way, and violates "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" (this rule exists also in the Hewiki). In the article "מוכרי בובות" it moved the chapter about Israel into the chapter about Asia, and its edit was undone. After undoing, it erased the whole chapter about Asia. It also tagged four Hebrew wikipedians for supporting it, but complained against mentioning King and Bora Bora, who were experienced with this troll.
The Hewiki bureaucrats have to declare this user as a troll. Applying sockpuppet investigations is useless without declaring the user as a troll. Dgw (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello @ביקורת: as I have said, you are a bureaucrat.
Yesterday you wrote to an anonymous in Esther Hayut's talk page: "This is how we have been working for years, and the quality of information is being improved, with the hard work of hundreds of volunteers, who did not discover Wikipedia in the newspaper on a hot Friday morning, and came to throw their bitterness and go away.
I am sure that my lord enjoys the Hebrew Wikipedia more than once, so my lord will allow me to request: Give us a little more credit than you gave us with the set of assumptions which led you to write the very condescending post above."
Sorrowfully, this vocabulary may not be accepted, even if it was written to an anonymous. A bureaucrat may not use words like "came to throw their bitterness and go away", "my lord" and "very condescending post". An ad-hominem discussion in the Hewiki is prohibited, and ביקורת wrote it in his email to me on 13 May 2020 at 7:12 am.
Therefore your decision about my discussions and about my undids is void. From now I am exactly as other Hewiki editors. Dgw (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry to read Dgw's messages in this discussion. ביקורת is doing a very good job as a bureaucrat, and this discussion is wasting his time. Dgw has to learn how to deal with other people in Wikipedia. I tried to help him for some time, and this discussion shows that he still needs help. This is not the place for such help, so I call Dgw to close this discussion. דוד שי (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to say that ביקורת addressed David Shay in his Hewiki user page and tagged also me. In the Enwiki it is considered as Canvassing. I did not complain about David Shay, so ביקורת did not have to address him. ביקורת as well as David Shay could write here in Hebrew.
Sorrowfully, ביקורת also violated an additional Hewiki rule when he wrote my user name in the title of the discussion in David Shay's talk page: "Gray and the discussion in Meta". Specifying a user in a title is not allowed in the Hewiki. If I did it, I would be blocked.
Before openning the issue, I talked a lot with WMF. They agreed with me that it was the place for discussing it. Dgw (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was forked by a user who led ביקורת to make his decision about me on 8 January 2020. This user wrote that the Hewiki had to consider severely this discussion, and wrote also additional words which should not have been written: "Maybe even there (Meta, Dwg) they identify with whom they have business". The user forked the discussion also here. Dgw (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello @ערן: and @ביקורת: the harassment of the user:לירה continues. The user is an internet troll who goes directly against me, because it has been a sock puppet. It wrote it in its talk page: 1, and attacked user:Ronavni, who has just voted in favor of Barbra Streisand. Ronavni wrote to this troll: "I saw a quarrel of quarrels and aggressive conduct on your part in deleting edits that you think have no place": 2.
The troll has followed the article about Deaf peddlers. I wrote the article on July 13, 2017, and it did not have any comments nor resistance until the troll went into it. The troll went by the Salami tactics. Every period of time it erased another part of the article. In the beginning, it erased a video of a Deaf beggar: 3. Then it erased a chapter about Asia: 4. These edits were reverted by a reviewer who was not me. As a result, the troll made a notability discussion: 5. The discussion passed, and the article remained. Then the troll made a vote of controversy: 6. The discussion lasted ten days and in the end the vote was closed by two administrators, when one of them was reverted twice by the troll: 7, 8.
After the vote was closed, the troll began a new series of deletions. Yesterday it put a template with a wrong name: Kaminsky instead of Kaminitz, which showed that it did not read the article: 9. It also deleted a footnote: 10 and a source: 11. Today it deleted an additional source: 12, a footnote: 13, a third source: 14, Changed "Africa" to "Ghana": 15, deleted "South America" and deleted "Europe" with it: 16, added a template for deleting an additional text: 17, misspelled a word: 18, deleted an external link, claiming it was a "paid article" in spite of its title and introduction were fully visible: 19, deleted a significant and sourced text: 20, deleted "No publications have been found to support this phenomenon" without any edit summary: 21, and deleted the image of the article, claiming that it was not a ticket, in spite of the dimensions of a ticked are not defined, and the size of the picture in inches is not specified, and the talk page of the article supported the image: 22.
It is clearly evident that the troll is obsessed with me and with the article.
Here is a clear evidence of the troll's obsession: "If qualified sources are ever found, the article will be written from scratch, from the title until the categories": 23.
The solution would be to make a decision which prohibits this troll from editing articles which I have created. If the troll wants to modify anything, it has to write it in the talk page, and wait until someone else does it. ביקורת wrote to me: "Even if it really seems to you that Wikipedia would be destroyed if nobody gets your opinion, leave it to others". It is valid also to this troll. It has to write articles instead of deleting everything which it sees. Such a conduct is a pure vandalism and is not accepted. Dgw (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Jimbo Wales: At first I wish to thank you for establishing Wikipedia and the rest of Wikimedia projects. It is really great.
I have read your user page on the English Wikipedia. The leading phrase is: "Do not vandalize". It also appears in this image with your line: "Don't be a vandal; be a contributor instead!"
I have applied two of the Hebrew Wikipedia's bureaucrats, but sorrowfully got few results.
In the hewiki there is an internet troll. I know its identity, because the language it uses in the hewiki is identical to the language it uses in its real life. It also has an obsession, both in the hewiki and in the real life. It is a computer criminal who performs very sophisticated and well oriented violations.
It clearly vandalizes articles which I have written, claiming false statements. It reverted September 11 attacks to a version which was three weeks earlier, claiming for a "stable" version, but simply destroyed the article: 24. It erased the footnotes which I edited, like "Cheney: Order to Shoot Down Hijacked 9/11 Planes 'Necessary'", "Cheney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets", "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Wartime", "The New York Times, A Day of Terror: The Reaction", and returned it to "here", "here", "here" and "here". It also erased the alignment, which I did to the left, and returned it to the right. It is a vandalism. I wrote it in the talk page of the article, but nothing was done, although an administrator participated the talk page.
It made vandalism also in the article about Deaf Peddlers in the Hewiki. It made a total war upon the article and vandalized it endlessly. It deleted the image of the article: 22, in spite of the talk page agreed that the image had to remain. The image was important because it informed the reader what fingerspelling was, and the article dealt with Deaf peddlers who distributed false invoices with fingerspelling printed upon it, or distributed cards with fingerspelling. The troll claimed that the image "was not a card", and deleted it, but the image was a fingerspelling and should not be deleted. The troll wanted to enable the selling of false papers with fingerspelling because it was a criminal and supported crime. In its real life, it supported also Lori Shem-Tov, who horrified social workers and judges in Israel. It deleted also a lot of other things from the article, as I described above in sections 9–21.
I wrote yesterday to the bureaucrat Eran on his talk page: 25, but he did not reply. Instead, the troll deleted it twice as an anonymous user: 26, 27. Today Eran replied another issue in his talk page, but did not reply me on his talk page and did not reply also here, in spite of he was tagged. The troll is still free and continues to vandalize articles in the Hewiki, deleting vital information. It put also a notability template upon the article "Benchrest shooting": 28, because it wants just to delete and vandalize, and another Hewiki wrote: "Another unnecessary notability template": 29. This endless behavior of the troll has to be ended, and it has to be blocked indefinitely.
Thank you and regards, Dgw (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The title of this topic is "Strange rules of a bureaucrat" as well as "Endless list of sock puppets in the Hebrew Wikipedia".
Unluckily, the decisions of the bureaucrat were not changed. @ערן: (Eran) came instead of ביקורת, and the decision remained unchanged. I would say that it became worse, because it included @בורה בורה: (Bora Bora) who definitely was not me. Today (December 24, 2020) Eran wrote in the Hewiki at the request for comment/user conduct which was made by the sock puppet "Superwoman" (please see the chapter 'User:Hedgehog' which is below):

"In any case where both of you would get together for a confrontation and cancellations of edits of a particular user over several articles in a way which raises a suspicion of a harassing following after a user, you will be blocked without any further notice".

This warning contradicts this vote in Meta.
In the RFC which was made by 'Superwoman', User:AddMore-III complained my text in the talk page of the Richard III of England on the Hewiki. I wrote nothing about AddMore, and did not undo any of his edits. I objected the deletion of Winston Churchill's book as well as other deletions, and wrote it on the talk page. Bora Bora came that talk page because he saw it in the recent changes. Bora Bora also did not undo any edit of AddMore, but wrote about Churchill, who won the Nobel Prize for his book, which AddMore deleted from the article about Richard III, and other deletions. How could Eran prohibit it? Was AddMore the Prime Minister of the UK or a Nobel Prize winner? AddMore also claimed that User:Noam Dovev, User:Gabi S, User:Nirvadel, User:Arie Inbar and User:Arielinson were automatons. Will Eran block all of these honored users just because AddMore wrote it? Wikipedia is a multi-user project, not a single user project!
There are a lot of editors in the Hewiki who follow each other, and I do not write their names here. They are not sock puppets and I respect them. But Superwoman is a sock puppet. There is no doubt about it. Superwoman also left the Hewiki after Eran had written the warning to Bora Bora and me, and returned only after the User:The Turtle Ninja had been blocked, for doing additional chaos. All the sock puppets left the Hewiki after they destroyed it. User:Lira was blocked for two hours and left. User:Lucy's cousin once removed was blocked for a week and left. Then it requested User:IKhitron as an anonymous to delete its user, in spite of Lucy argued IKhitron endlessly as well as Superwoman did. Afterwards, User:Lucy Lane Data requested IKhitron to delete also its user, keeping blaming him! If I ask Eran to delete my user (I think it would not happen), I will not blame him for anything! I would ask him kindly to do it, and would not bring black pots from the past! Only trolls use this way. User:Elastic spoon also left immediately after it made ביקורת to prohibit me undoings and participating talk pages! User:T&T left after it removed the patroller rights of User:King G.A by a RFC in the Hewiki. User:Mia www Mia left after it requested to remove the patroller rights of Bora Bora. User:Pop left after it lost the deletion vote of Johnny Sins. It is endless!
The Turtle Ninja wrote just yesterday in the Hewiki: "For the avoidance of any doubt: there is no apology in my words towards Superwoman and her metastases." Ninja is definitely not me nor Bora Bora, and wrote yesterday also: "Woe to us, we have reached a point where one user holds the testicles of an entire community." For that he was blocked for one day.
Before the end, I would say that the real harassment came from User:Hedgehog, which wrote three times in the archive of my talk page. Not once, but three! First time it did it itself, second time it did it by Ldorfman, after it had blamed Ldorfman in my talk page, and third time it did it by Eldad. What does it look for in the archive?! If it wants to write, it has to write on my talk page, not in an archive! Furthermore, Lira harassed the "Deaf peddlers" article in the Hewiki much, much more than the single text which I wrote in the Richard III talk page, until there was no choice but to delete it! It was an article which passed a notability discussion (which was opened by Lira itself), but it decided to destroy the article in any way!
I have to add that these rules do not give me an opportunity to write the article about the Japanese Architecture. I have already ceased it once when User:גארפילד (Garfield) who has been an admin, blamed me for making "edit wars" when I addressed the Hewiki CheckUsers regarding Superwoman. I returned after Superwoman had argued with IKhitron. Three judges who estimate the article agreed that I would edit it in their contest, but the rules of Eran made me unwilling. Dgw (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
User:קיפודנחש wrote several statements in the Hewiki RFC, which were not correct, and it was not the first time:
1. קיפודנחש claimed that I requested to remove the bureaucrat permissions of User:ביקורת. It was totally untrue. I wrote clearly on this page: "ביקורת has to withdraw his decision about me, because he did not have any mandate to make this decision, especially when there were a lot of sock puppets which he did not control, and these puppets made a much higher damage than me during a whole year."
Nothing has been written regarding ביקורת permissions, nor Eran permissions.
2. In the Hewiki RFC, קיפודנחש did not mention at all that it harassed me at least three times by writing inside the archive of my talk page, in spite of it was not allowed to write there, but only in the talk page itself.
3. קיפודנחש claimed that it got a notice on its talk page about this discussion, but did not say that the notice was in the Hewiki. I have already written clearly in my edit summary in the Hewiki that I would request to block קיפודנחש if it wrote by the third time in the archive of my talk page. קיפודנחש saw it and wrote it to Eldad.
The notifier in the Hewiki was a new sock puppet which registered itself today in the morning and its second action, after writing several words on its user page, was that notice on the talk page of קיפודנחש.
4. The sock puppet which calls itself 'Tony Nescafe', wrote to קיפודנחש in Hebrew: "Do you need a lawyer?" It violated the rule which prohibited legal proceedings in Wikipedia. Therefore User:Tony Nescafe has to be blocked.
5. קיפודנחש claimed that following 'Superwoman' was not the issue of the Hewiki RFC, in spite of Superwoman opened the RFC due to my "following" her, which was allowed by this vote, and I have already written that I did not bother non sock puppet editors.
6. קיפודנחש wrote clearly in the Hewiki RFC: "If you want to involve Bora in the discussion as well, it is better to start a separate discussion, and not to mix two things that are at best have a loose connection", but it did it with its statements. It put its statements in the RFC which Superwoman made. It is off-topic on one side, and harassment on the other side! Going into a RFC which another one did, and putting its own and personal statements in it due to the discussion which is held here, is a harassment and forking the discussion.
Thus קיפודנחש requested to make sanctions in the Hewiki due to a text which had been written here.
7. קיפודנחש also claimed that I "made" the leaving of a lot of good and contributing editors. The editors who left were sock puppets, and left after their blocking. It is the conduct of a sock puppet: Leaving by the slamming of the door, and immediately reappearing in another name, as 'Tony Nescafe' did today. No regular editor would do its second editing by asking another Wikipedian if it needs a lawyer for dealing with a third Wikipedian!
8. Therefore the Hewiki bureaucrats have to ignore that text which קיפודנחש wrote in the Hewiki RFC, because it was off-topic, untrue and harassment. Dgw (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Here I add that User:Dovno added yesterday some wrong statements:
Dovno claimed that I have not applied Hewiki CheckUsers regarding the sock puppets. It was not true. I did apply them, after an anonymous user had destroyed the talk page of the Hewiki admin גארפילד. As a result of my application, גארפילד blamed me for making "edit wars" in spite of I did not make even one. In the Hewiki, an edit war is defined such: 1. An edit is made by a user. 2. The edit is undone by another user. 3. The first user repeats its edit.
It is the definition of an edit war in the Hewiki, and I did not make it.
Dovno also claimed that I did not apply the admins. It was not true, neither. Here I applied the admins regarding edits which were made by User:לירה, who was one of the sock puppets. It is the editing of לירה in the September 11 attacks article, and I have already written it here on 20 October 2020 at 18:24.
Dovno also blamed me for calling לירה a "sock puppet" as a fact. לירה wrote on its talk page:

I will register next month as a male editor and you shall see that nobody will recognize me.

(אני אירשם בחודש הקרוב כעורך ותראו שלא יזהו אותי).
For it, User:David Shay replied Lira: "You are very aggressive, you divert discussion pages from a matter-of-fact discussion to a discussion of your feelings and accusations, and you are opaque to the criticism which is directed at you, because it is clear to you that you are perfect and all criticism which towards you stems only from your gender. You are walking a path that will lead to your permanent removal in any form which you identify with, and there have always been things, with boys and girls. From your responses so far, it is clear to me that these words also fall on deaf ears. I just put it here so that you would not say "I did not know"."
David Shay is one of the most experienced editors in the Wikipedia, but Dovno did not mention these words of David Shay. Instead of it, Dovno supported לירה, after five other admins supported the blocking of לירה by גארפילד. The admins who supported blocking לירה were גארפילד, יונה ב., David Shay, התו השמיני,‎ ‏Yoavd‏ and בריאן. Dovno wrote to לירה in his words: "I really hope you would continue to contribute".
Dovno also erased the whole text which the User:Safeinthelife wrote on the talk page of לירה:

Your edits are terrible. The vandalizing of an entire paragraph which I wrote about California after a long search and reading (with links and everything). What exactly are you complaining about? Do you really pull out the woman's card here? Embarrassing. The detail from the paragraph which noted black women, you were quick to omit, claiming that there was no link (probably this skin color did not suit you), but you left the rest of the details which I wrote, although they were taken from the same source. Shame on you. A bored troll.

Dovno did not have to delete the whole text, but could edit the words which he thought were wrong. He also warned Safeinthelife, and Safeinthelife vanished on the same day.
Dovno also blocked User:The Turtle Ninja, for calling the sock puppets "metastases". Then the Ninja made it clear that he was confused between the words extensions and metastases, and tagged Dovno. Furthermore, Superwoman requested the Ninja to delete all his words about it, which he wrote in the Hewiki, but he declined.
Dovno also claimed that I did not use the Hewiki RFC, but other users, like קיפודנחש and Dovno, made their statements which were not concerned with the statement which was made by Superwoman, in spite of the goal of the RFC was to solve the issue which was raised, and not to discuss off-topics. Thus Dovno requested to block me, due to using this RFC in Meta, in spite of the issue was made by Superwoman who complained "following" her, and it was solved a week ago, and although this voting allows following users.
Dovno also claimed that the words of User:נעם דובב in the Hewiki RFC were "personal", after נעם had written that the decision of ביקורת regarding me, had a black flag. These words "black flag" made Dovno to blame נעם for being "personally oriented" towards ביקורת. Here I remind that the Hewiki RFC was made by Superwoman, but Dovno moved it to the issue of ביקורת, and worse of it, claimed that נעם was personally oriented towards ביקורת.
The behavior of Dovno has also forked this discussion.
After blaming me in the Hewiki CheckUsers sheet, User:גארפילד joined Dovno, and claimed that I addressed the English Wikipedia, in spite of I addressed Meta.
User:Geagea also claimed that this RFC in Meta is "harassment".
I remind that the off-topic discussion in the Hewiki RFC was made by קיפודנחש, but Dovno, Garfield and Geagea joined it promptly, blaming me for using the Meta RFC. For it, נעם דובב wrote: "I feel that admins and other bureaucrats have a strong tendency to crowd the ranks and defend one of them, and I have seen this countless times", but Dovno claimed that it was "off-topic" due to "a personal attitude" of נעם דובב. Dgw (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:HedgehogEdit

"Hedgehog" is a user which calls itself "HedgehogSnake" in Hebrew, and appears here.
I have written about it to WMF:
1. In the body of an article about personal computers before 1975, Hedgehog wrote in Hebrew:
"The list below is incomplete, and if you know of a computer that fits the list, or other details about the computers described, please expand the entry. The list aims to describe for each computer the history of development and, if possible, the computer itself, its influence, and its "lineage", even after 1975".
Upon this text, there were edit warring between Hedgehog and other users, in spite of the talk page of the article supported the removal of this text. An encyclopedia does not address the reader.
2. During the edit warring, Hedgehog was blocked at least twice, mainly due to kicking an administrative warning from Eli. For removing any doubt, Hedgehog also argued with two other administrators, Dovno and שמזן.
3. As a result, Hedgehog has an obsession towards me.

At this point, the treatment of WMF was ended.

4. About ten days ago, The sock puppet "Superwoman" made a "Requests for comment/User conduct" due to citing its words in a user's talk page.
5. Hedgehog claimed at the RFC that Superwoman was harassed, and redirected to this vote, claiming that the editors were against the proposal, in spite of the vote showed the opposite.
6. Going with its attitude, Hedgehog came to my talk page and interfered a discussion between Dovno and me, dealing with this troll (Superwoman and other names which I mentioned above, like "Lira"). The discussion did not deal with Hedgehog, but it went in, keeping blaming me and another administrator, who was not Dovno nor Eli.
7. As a result, I wrote in my talk page that I did not want to discuss with Hedgehog. A day later, I archived it on September 28, 2020.

8. On September 30, 2020, Hedgehog wrote inside my archive instead of writing on my talk page. Writing in any archive is not allowed, and in the head of my archive there is a clear notice in Hebrew:

This page is an archive of a discussion that has ended. The continuation of the discussion should take place on the talk page of the entry or topic in question. Do not edit this page.

9. I noticed its text only on November 4, 2020, because I did not have any indication that it wrote inside my archive! As a result, I undid the text with an according edit summary: "The archive is not the place to comment on what I wrote on the talk page. At the top of the page it says: "The continuation of the discussion should take place on the talk page of the entry or topic in question." Then I asked Ldorfman to protect the archive.
10. On the same day, Hedgehog requested Ldorfman to return its text to the archive, claiming it did not have enough time to respond me. I did not want its response, as I had written that I had not wanted to discuss with Hedgehog. It had to write on my talk page, not in the archive. The discussion also did not deal with it, but with sock puppets. Is Hedgehog a sock puppet?!
11. Afterwards, I deleted the text which Hedgehog had written in the archive, and wrote again in the edit summary: "Archive is not for writing new posts". I wrote also: "Even the content of the text written in the archive is unfortunately not suitable for a talk page. If there is a request to return text written in the archive after archiving the talk page, there will be no choice but blocking the user."
12. Yesterday (December 22, 2020) Hedgehog requested again Eldad to return its text to my archive, and wrote: "Sorry for the pettiness, but for some unknown reason it bothers me", but it was a systematic harassment by Hedgehog.
13. Therefore, I ask @WMFOffice: to do the following:

a. Remove this text.
b. Block Hedgehog for a while from the Hebrew Wikipedia.

Thank you, Dgw (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have an additional request to block User:קיפודנחש from the Hewiki, due to the following two reasons:
1. Yesterday in the Hewiki RFC, which was made by Superwoman, קיפודנחש wrote among the rest:

I will note that Dorian has launched in Meta a campaign for his aim to remove the bureaucrat's privileges of ביקורת‎.

("אציין שדוריאן פתח במטא קמפיין למטרתו להסיר את הרשאות הביורוקרט של ביקורת").
It is untrue. I have not launched any campaign like it.
These words of קיפודנחש are intended to mislead the Hewiki users and give them a wrong atmosphere regarding me, which were emphasised by the following words of קיפודנחש in the Hewiki RFC:

For the sake of public hygiene, there is no escape from blocking Dorian for a significant period.

2. The second reason is that קיפודנחש also wrote:

The damage done by his behavior to date is significant, and if he did not cause, at least he contributed to the leaving of a number of helpful and good editors, who came here with much enthusiasm.

But קיפודנחש mentioned me five times at this discussion from January 2020, which was made by User:Staval about User:כפית אלסטית. It also wrote there: "I cannot write my opinion about him and his behavior and at the same time maintain the Wikipedia:Etiquette".
קיפודנחש pointed out only sock puppets who left the Hewiki "due to me", as it wrote with its own words in the Hewiki RFC: "לי ידוע רק על "עורכות" – I know only about "female editors"".
It is clear that קיפודנחש cannot leave me alone, but keeps hounding and harassing me, in spite of it is not admin nor bureaucrat, and I am not a sock puppet of any kind. Worse than it, קיפודנחש cannot write the truth when it deals with me. Therefore, I requested to block it from the Hewiki for a while, until it leaves me alone. Dgw (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I made some changes and removed a statement, after User:Staval made it clear that her decision was not made due to קיפודנחש words. Dgw (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Here I add an additional update, and do not tag קיפודנחש, because I have already tagged it some minutes ago.
קיפודנחש admitted clearly that I did not request to remove the bureaucrat privileges of ביקורת.
קיפודנחש also wrote to גארפילד that applying this RFC in Meta is legitimate.
קיפודנחש also agreed that its writing in the Hewiki RFC about the RFC in Meta was off-topic.
This chapter is archived now. Dgw (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.