Requests for comment/Official complaint against a bureaucrat for defamation on Hebrew Wikipedia

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

This is an appeal against Garfield, a bureaucrat on the Hebrew Wikipedia.

Background

(You may skip the background section and proceed directly to #The Defamation chapter.)

The Doctrine of Informers

Between mid-2023 and 2024, a group of editors joined the Hebrew Wikipedia with the intent of obtaining voting rights through trivial edits, such as adding internal links, in order to participate in votes. In early May, the bureaucrats responded by blocking over 40 editors simultaneously. While this measure was necessary, it was overly extreme and hinted at the bureaucrats' emerging fixation.

The bureaucrat Garfield unilaterally imposed a new policy that prohibits users from discussing ongoing debates and votes outside the platform. While conversation about articles or issues are allowed, any mention of current votes is forbidden.

This policy is illogical and unenforceable without relying solely on informers. While they were waiting for such informers, the bureaucrats have frozen all voting processes within Wikipedia's parliament and halted elections.

This approach has created a toxic environment.

First Incident of Informing - Early June 2024

The first instance of enforcement under this doctrine occurred in early June 2024, when a banned editor infiltrated a WhatsApp training group (There are different groups for various interests, including politics). He took screenshots of a participant, Itamar, discussing a vote on the deletion of an article titled "Settler Violence"—a significant vote that attracted media attention. The article, Israeli settler violence was deleted from the Hebrew version.

Itamar, who expressed his opinion on the matter, was permanently banned. Another senior editor, Danny, who joined the group to assist with training, was also banned for life, despite not having expressed opinion on the issue.

Danny had been a contributor to Wikipedia for 19 years and had previously collaborated with Garfield on training projects and other Wikipedia initiatives. At the time of his banning, he was hospitalized with pancreatitis, a severe illness that causes excruciating pain. Garfield visited him in the hospital and obtained his “confession” that he was a member of the WhatsApp group (which he had never denied). Based on this, Garfield imposed a lifetime ban on Danny as well.

Danny was devastated. Wikipedia had been his life. The irrationality and the cruelty of this act shocked many, myself included. David Shay, the founder of Hebrew Wikipedia, and numerous other editors shared this outrage. As of this writing, Danny is again hospitalized.

I confronted Garfield, expressing my opinion, and that marked the beginning of our adversarial relationship.

Garfield's obsession with the Informer Doctrine has paralyzed Hebrew Wikipedia for months. The two bureaucrats frequently dropped vague hints that "people are talking" (which I interpret as approaching editors in attempt to persuade them to inform) and claim they are close to completing their "cleanup." Garfield has indicated that he intends to ban 30 additional users.

Second Incident of Informing - August 3, 2024

In early August 2024 two editors presented their candidacy for the position of "checker." The more senior and prominent candidate was Gabi, a well-respected leftist editor admired across the political spectrum for his seriousness and composure, even in heated debates. The other candidate was a right-wing editor, whom I am less familiar with.

Two days before the voting commenced, an administrator named Barak unexpectedly added his own candidacy for the role of checker, prompting the right-wing candidate to withdraw. So, it was Barak vs Gabi. I disapproved of Barak's move. He explained to me that he entered the race to prevent the election of a politically recognized checker, which I consider an illegitimate motive. It was clear that Barak would win, and I was frustrated by his presumptuousness in trying to "save Wikipedia" by undermining Gabi’s chances. No editor is without political opinions. I was also disheartened by the administrators who unanimously supported "one of their own."

I reached out to few editors with whom I regularly talk to get their opinions. Three of them voted for Gabi (out of 77 total voters), which they would have done regardless of my input.

Among those I contacted was a user who became the informer. This user had previously asked me to alert him to important votes. He forwarded the email I sent him to Garfield. I later discovered that this user had aspirations of becoming an administrator and trolled Wikipedia by misusing processes to garner votes from right-wing editors.

As a result of his informing, Garfield permanently banned me.

The Defamation

Garfield, one of the two bureaucrats in the Hebrew Wikipedia, announced my ban on my talk page, accompanied by a defamatory and confused speech filled with hatred and false accusations. He presented things that didn't happen and attributed to me statements made by others. Not a single claim he made was true.

Defamation is akin to shedding blood and is a serious offense. He employed interrogation-like tactics, claiming that multiple editors had approached him about me (it was only the informer) and repeatedly used phrases like, 'You know this is true.'

He claimed to have evidence but never produced any, and refused to retract a statement even after the other bureaucrat confirmed it was false. He punctuated everything with clichéd moral lectures, refused to apologize, and then vanished from Wikipedia claiming he is busy.

I have screenshots that prove everything below.

1. Garfield's Allegation: "In the checkuser elections, you approached editors saying 'Barak is right-wing and a settler, just like the other checkusers.'"

This never happened. I repeatedly asked Garfield to provide evidence for this claim, but all he did was insist, "Not lies—absolute truth." After three days of this baseless accusation, the second bureaucrat, Biqoret, removed the statement. He found that Garfield had copied the sentence from another editor, not me—whether this was due to confusion, or some other reason is unclear.

2. Garfield's Allegation: "We were informed that you approached other editors outside of Wikipedia with the intent to slander us and strategize ways to thwart the proposals of Biqouret and myself, distorting our words whenever possible."

He referred to a proposal for reform that he and Biqoret proposed. I never wrote about this—not on Wikipedia nor in communication with anyone. I did not participate in any Wikipedia discussions about it, comment on it, or even had interest in its details. His claim is pure fabrication. I repeatedly asked for proof, such as screenshots, but he offered none and ignored my requests.

3. Garfield's Allegation: "I made it clear that I received information from several editors that Partira was encouraging people to vote for Gabi and 'overthrow' one of the bureaucrats."

I never discussed overthrowing a bureaucrat, I criticize them but didn’t suggest overthrowing. Garfield actually copied what the informer said in a conversation with another editor. The informer says: "I discussed this with another editor, and we concluded that even if we manage to overthrow one of the bureaucrats, there is no suitable candidate to replace them. " The other editor sent me the screenshot. Why does Garfield attribute it me, I don’t know, from confusion or malice.

4. Garfield's Allegation: "It is strictly forbidden to conspire with others to undermine the community’s ability to examine issues objectively, or to ensure that multiple editors present lies until they become accepted as truth."

This is an extremely serious defamation. He accuses me of introducing lies into Wikipedia articles and of recruiting a large number of editors to support these lies. Needless to say, I have never introduced a lie to Wikipedia, never asked anyone to lie. His accusations are lunacy.

He tried to back it by an example: "If anyone needs examples, they can refer to the previous discussion of your ban or the Village Pump discussion about the bureaucrats’ proposal, or the 'RFA' process at every stage."

He meant a discussion from the previous week. A right-wing editor opened a discussion by mocking an edit that another user inserted and saying, "From laughing so hard, I suspected urinary incontinence." Five respected editors, including the founder of Hebrew Wikipedia, David Shay, responded to him.
To say they were lying is preposterous. I was the last to join the discussion, and I didn’t invite any of them. But Garfield calls this "recruiting a large number of editors to spread lies until they become accepted as truth."

Is anyone familiar with Kafka's The Trial? That’s how I feel. I have repeatedly demanded that Garfield retract his defamatory statements and apologize, but he ignored me and disappeared from Wikipedia claiming he is busy. So, I appeal to this court to judge him.

LaNavP (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On Defamation and the Doctrine of Informing

OK, now there are 10 open RfC's related to Hebrew Wikipedia. What the heck is going on here? --魔琴 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing good 85.250.26.34 03:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Power tripping. T&S team intervention might be the last resort to resolve disputes. I think some people may be aware about possible project capture. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ijon, how can Meta assist in cases like this? Suppose a bureaucrat on the swahili Wikipedia is lying and defaming an editor (or editors), What options are available to Meta? LaNavP (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The remedies for such a situation are, in order:
1. Enforcement by local community governance.
2. Enforcement by the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team, provided a complaint is filed with them and is judged to have merit. They are reachable by email at ca@wikimedia.org.
3. Enforcement by global community decision to intervene (or to request the Foundation to intervene), following a determination of catastrophic local governance failure.
So to your question, Meta could potentially deliberate on taking action if and only if the first two channels are seen to have been exhausted.

I know the local community is in turmoil for several months now, and that it does not look like local governance can solve it, since the recriminations involve fundamental doubts about the good faith of current local leadership.

It is my understanding that multiple complaints have been filed with Trust and Safety already, perhaps also by you (I don't know). I suggest that those complaints need to be decided before it would be appropriate to try to get the Meta community to deliberate on declaring a catastrophic governance failure or "project capture" on Hebrew Wikipedia. Ijon (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On deviation from Meta's principle

(was split from above)

What does 'Project Capture' mean?
Project capture refers to a group of people with advanced rights who gatekeep their project from people with different views. That means only content that conforms with the views of admins are allowed. Croatian Wikipedia was the high-profile example. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s different in Hebrew Wikipedia, but there are similarities. There is an extreme right-wing majority among the editors, and only a few left-wing editors participate in editing political articles. This isn't an organized effort by the administrators, but they are involved. For example, yesterday several ultra-patriotic editors initiated a Requests for Comment/User Conduct process against a left-wing editor, claiming that he is spreading anti-Israeli propaganda. This editor writes about the other side, such as the loss of innocent Palestinian lives and settler violence.

This is a content-related issue, not one of user conduct, but the administrators allowed this discussion to continue and even participated in it. The editor in question is a good one, backing up his claims, correcting incorrect assertions, and working together with a veteran left-wing editor who mentors him. His contribution to maintaining a neutral point of view is almost unique in Hebrew Wikipedia and is essential.

However, the right-wing editors suggested that he should focus on editing music-related articles instead of political ones, and the bureaucrat Garfield supported this suggestion. LaNavP (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is an endemic cultural problem being imported to Wikipedia, a bit like homophobia and Swahili Wikipedia. If I’m not mistaken a majority of Israelis have the right-wing, ultra-patriotic views you describe. I’m not sure how you’re supposed to uproot that kind of intractable issue; it’s not like we can send in the 101st Airborne Division to force compliance. Dronebogus (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus it's not entirely true that the majority of Israelis have such ultra-patriotic views, as such views are held by about a half of the population. However, they're definitely held by a large majority of Hebrew Wikipedians - because several courses for "zionist editing in Wikipedia" and "telling the Jewish truth in Wikipedia" have been running in ultra nationalist communities for years, while courses for the liberal public were banned and their instructors blocked permanently from hewiki. Religious jews are now a majority amongst checkusers and about a half of the admins - while being only about 25% of the population. Anyways, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and well sourced, so if editors create biases and prevent balances, and if admins abuse their power to create a biased userbase, then something must be done.

I'm certain that the international wikimedia organization has some authority over the local wikis, and I know of cases in which they acted against local wiki which went astray. If a local wiki project drifts too far away from the principal values of the Wikipedia movement, maybe it shouldn't be allowed to use the "Wikipedia" logo, url and servers anymore.
I apologize for writing anonymously, I'm an active hewiki editor and I'm afraid of being attacked locally for this message. 62.56.143.174 09:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your concern about harassment. I do think Hewiki’s corruption and defiance of Wikimedian ideals is getting ludicrous (there’s like half a dozen complaints from its users on this board) and needs to be addressed. But I also worry that’s not going to happen because the people with authority to execute such an extreme sanction don’t seem to care. Dronebogus (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I joined Hebrew Wikipedia (IW) on summer 2015. From the moment I joined in, I’ve never hidden my foreign identity, as I was so different from most of the other IWs. I am not a Jewish person, nor with a Zionist POV. I was just a Swedish boy from a Lutheran family, though I am an Atheist.
From the very first moment at IW, I suffered of racist from a majority group of users, that thought there’s no place for a Swedish person (as I grew up) in an “Israeli Wikipedia” (as these see IW). As I never look for fights, I asked and approved into a side group of young editors calls The Friends’ Club, where we wrote an article every few days, improved IW at best of our abilities. As for myself, I joined another side group of IW editors that helped colleagues with translation and transliteration, especially from Scandinavian Tongues.
IW suffers from its roots, and as long as the IW editors won’t understand the diff between Hebrew and Israel, there’s nothing any of us can do to help it. It will just drown daily into a blackhole, until it finally radiates itself into empty space. For the best of my knowledge, I was the last survived foreign (=none Jew) editor left.
Things turned from bad to worst during Oct 2022. In my stupidity, I thought I could help change the way history goes. I asked to join as an Administer in the false hope that I could, as a foreigner, calm down the Israelis, what was doomed from even before the start. After I joined in, I started to get hate and racists emails from a group of editors, among them known fellas’ admins. After a month or so, I finally gave up, though racists never gone.
A few weeks after I gave up, one of these editors hacked my Wiki account, and left on my User:talk a gigantic flag of the Terror Orc Organization. My account was blocked and only after a confirmation on Discord it was unlocked (after I changed my password). Only days passed and Garfield (one of the then Trio) sent me another email, saying that I am accused on “some very bad things”. I, again in my stupidity, opened it publicly, and still got messages of “some very bad things” that he, and others, said I did.
After some long talks with my friends, I got my best decision to date, just run away as fast I as can. That decision changed my very life. For some time, I was trying to keep helping my fellas’ transliterations, but still got hate and racists emails from the Israelis. I ended up on August 24 closing my email account, asking to close and lock my new account on the English Wikipedia and close (for good) any connection with any Israeli, except for 3 people who can still contact me.
The point, I guess, is that there’s nothing we can do to help these poor suffering souls. Even a radical restarting IW won’t help. IW is just another way where Israelis are trying to fight among themselves. As long as IW’s editors are pure Israelis, it doomed to fade. It only drives people like myself turned down their opinion on Israel, Israelis and everything connected to them.
The problem is not with Garfield, the Trio or the admins. The problem is the way Israelis think, and the way Israelis act daily among themselves. The problem, in other words, is not with IW, but with its editors. Along all these emails and hateful I got from them, the way they treat non-Jewish persons, it still nothing to the way they treat themselves. Anderssøn79 (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, if WMIL fails to uphold neutrality, then there would be two choices, dissolve the chapter, or reform as Wikimedia Palestine. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken; national chapters have absolutely no jurisdiction on the wiki communities they serve. They are only able to offer support and promote programs such as editor recruitment, external partnerships-building (e.g. GLAM), etc., but have neither power nor responsibility over community governance.

You are also mistaken in thinking any Wikipedia is limited to any one country. The Hebrew Wikipedia serves Hebrew readers all over the world, just as the Chinese, Serbian, or Arabic Wikipedias do for speakers of those languages. This would be the case even if Wikimedia Israel (which is entirely irrelevant to this crisis) did not exist, or if a putative Wikimedia Palestine did. Ijon (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anderssøn79 your message here really broke my heart. We had a short e-mail correspondence at some point, but I couldn't keep it going because of lack of free time (too much internal fights, like you said) and now I'm sad I didn't hold on to our conversation. I'm devastated, though not surprised, to hear about the racist remarks that you received. I wish you told me about that in real time, so we could find someone to turn to.

Indeed, many Israeli editors follow the teachings of extremist rabbis an genuinely believe that "the distance between the soul of a jew and the soul of a gentile is larger than the distance between man and beast", as the founding father of religious zionism once wrote. Indeed, that is a problem for Hebrew Wikipedia as well as a huge ongoing problem for the state of Israel. However, the solution is not to lose faith in Israelis or in hewiki, but rather to help the normal Israeli Wikipedians fix this situation. Please understand that such views are held only by about a quarter of the Israeli public, but this is a very active and ideological group (and also they have a lot of free time, as many of them aren't working). The liberal, advanced and neutral public in Israel would never attack you on a racist basis, and would never introduce fallacies into hewiki like those guys do regularly.

The solution should come from outside: wikimedia foundation should create an independent investigation team to understand and solve the grave situation in hewiki. Many editors, admins and bureaucrats should be banned of stripped of their permissions. Many articles should be erased or rewritten with real neutrality. Much censored information needs to be brought back. As long as religious extremists and radical nationalists control the Wikipedia community, there's no hope - but the foundation can change this situation. They have the power. They only need to decide that they want to use it. 2A0D:6FC7:43C:F179:402B:1DFF:FE60:CF9E 09:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(between the lines) If you wish to send me an email, I registered for 24 hours, and reopened the "send me an email" opp. Just make sure to state who you are. Anderssøn79 (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support a full Croatian Wikipedia-style treatment. This is the only option to uphold NPOV. People should contribute to ENWP while while waiting for HEWP content to be cleaned up. I feel that the weight of HEWP is not suitable for all different viewpoints. There may be a possibility that if HEWP admins were SFB'd, they may start a new project, which aligns with Likud viewpoint. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahri Boy a project similar to what you're suggesting already exists: it's called HaMichlol, which ironically means "the whole picture" - and is actually a censored version of the Hebrew Wikipedia. These guys regularly copy hewiki pages, and censor them according to their "spiritual comitee"'s guidelines (which means: no evolution, no Bible criticism, nothing which might go against Jewish fundamentalism).

Many HaMichlol editors also edit regularly in Wikipedia, and sometimes it's not clear if they fully understand the difference between these projects. Since Hebrew speakers already have a censored, "purified" version of Wikipedia, it's critically important to keep the REAL Wikipedia unbiased and fact-based. 2A0D:6FC7:338:2C9:C858:F1FF:FE0B:C735 15:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be precise. You started cursing and corrupting outside the account, and to this day you continue, despite your blocking. ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just put things in the right context: there is a user here who claims to be Swedish (even though his IP data shows that he is located in Israel, but we'll put that aside), who received the full faith of Wikipedia users and even received admin permissions, But chose to curse and corrupt out of account. Now he tells a completely false narrative, which has nothing to do with reality. The user's vandalism activity can be found here. 185.182.71.28 13:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I guess that’s another issue with these folks. In Northern Europe, one wouldn’t dare to claim anything without verify it before, or speak to the person in question. One won’t get the nerve to repeat lies. It counts as a rudeness behavior. That exactly what Social Networks have done to our Human Community, especially to our Youngsters. When a social network state of mind combines with a non-European culture which in the first place has nothing to do with NVOP, it will eventually crush into a black hole, which in turn will fade from the Universe. That’s why, in my opinion, it is a waste of time to try and explain, not to say “save”, a community where the problem is with its folk state of mind, and therefore gets the Trio and the admins it deserves. One might want to spend its weekends with its family, friends and tonight especially with the Super Clasico (Barca vs Real Madrid). I have no intension to go back, I’m only looking forward to the future of myself, my people, my family and my friends. I advise you to do the same.

I remove my email (again) from this account, so I won’t get any notifications. Remember: “Livet über alles”; “Life is above all”. Be kind to yourself, and do some good to the world. Old Earth is for you to share, but with others, human and others. Do not spend your time on nonsense. Be kind, behave and if you can, go to a gym, your body will appreciate it. Niles. Anderssøn79 (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that in addition to the first RfCs and the additional RfCs that were created following that, the Support section of the original RfC raised additional concerns regarding project capture.

Namely I mentioned there is a hostile environment that even before the mass blockings encourage dissenters to resign, which is another way to achieve project capture (in my opinion, slower-burning, but more effective). My claims were corroborated by others as you can see in the Support section. TalyaNe (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]