Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki

< Requests for comment

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

This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Wikipedia (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies. This group has worked its way up hewiki's permission ladder, and some of its members are now admins, checkusers and bureaucrats. In recent years, as they gained more power, they changed rules to their benefit without consulting the community; blocked and threatened opposing editors; and conducted selective enforcement of the code of conduct, many times according to political identity. These actions lead to a lot of biased and non-NPOV content, bad atmosphere among editors, and left very little chance for change. Last November hewiki has elected new bureaucrats, in a controversial elections in which many editors could not participate due to a unilateral change of the qualifications to vote or due to their inexplicable block. Most of the events described herein took place while the previous bureaucrats were "in office", but sadly the new bureaucrats seem to follow in the previous ones' footsteps: Editors are still being interrogated and threatened; only 3 of the 59 editors who were inexplicably blocked have been released, and under strict limitations (they can't participate in discussions, polls and policy design, and aren't allowed to edit "political articles"); and the biased, selective enforcement of the rules persists. Just recently the "Parliament", where we vote about policy, was re-opened after a block of more than 7 months, in what the new bureaucrats called "Ending the blocks affair and opening the parliament". Still, many dozens of editors are either blocked, have lost the right to vote in the Parliament, or were forced to refrain from voting in exchange for their unblock. We will show that hewiki is in a dark place, and needs intervention from the international Wikimedia foundation.

The situation in Hewiki is not unrelated to processes that have been happening in Israel over the past two years, as the country has been undergoing a regime transformation, usually referred to as the "judicial overhaul" or the "self-coup". During this time the government has been centralizing its power and attempting to take control of the judicial system and police, turning them into its political arms. Those who criticize or protest against these actions are defamed as traitors and are being silenced. These events led to the demotion of Israel's Democracy Grade. Since the war in Gaza and Lebanon began, anti-democratic measures have been justified by claims that the country is in a state of emergency.

Unfortunately, similar processes seem to be affecting Hebrew Wikipedia: two bureaucrats, supported by a group of administrators and editors close to them, have concentrated significant power. They changed the rules without any community discussion, poll or broad consensus; operated without transparency; implemented mass indefinite blocks of editors without any warning and without presenting any evidence; threatened the remaining editors, hinting that "more blocks are underway"; conducted secretive investigations; encouraged "snitching" on fellow editors; and singled out "internal enemies" - all under the pretext of an "emergency situation". As a result, some editors have left the project, others have significantly reduced their activity, and some continue editing while expressing great discomfort with the situation. Some other editors have expressed their will to "bow their heads until the storm is over", fearing they too will be blocked indefinitely and their (user)names tarnished. These events raise concerns about hewiki increasingly departing from the basic principles of the global Wikimedia movement.

This document summarises the events and provides evidence for the above claims. It was written by a group of editors, who are concerned that hewiki has been overtaken by a group who dictates a non-neutral, mainly nationalist and/or religious POV, and now operates to stay in power by permanently blocking editors with liberal views or those who criticise the admins and bureaucrats, and preventing those regarded as "not our own" from achieving advanced positions such as admins, checkusers etc.

Our request from Wikimedia is to perform an extensive investigation of the situation, and get involved: consider taking extreme measures such as removal of permissions and cancellation of mass blocks, impose minimal standards and policies which fit Wikimedia's core values and ideology, and establish some sort of temporary supervision over hewiki until it stabalizes.

Note (1) - During November 2024 hewiki went through an election process for new bureaucrats, and the two bureaucrats mentioned herein were replaced. Our claim is that this did not change the situation, for several reasons:

  1. The elections were held after massive one-sided blocks and changes of regulations without the approval of the community, thus heavily biasing this vote.
  2. Several irregularities in the elections were ignored by those who were supposed to oversee the process (as described in chapter 2.7).
  3. The "old guard" of powerful admins and affiliated users is still in power, and even though the bureaucrats were replaced, its members still receive a lighter treatment when they break the rules.
  4. One of the newly elected bureaucrats said openly that he intends to continue the policy of the previous bureaucrats. If the other one will want to take a different path or reverse some actions, one can assume that she will have difficulty doing so without external support.
  5. The new bureaucrats did not fix most of the problems which were caused by the previous ones, and so far it seems like they follow in their footsteps: Most of the blocked editors are still blocked (and the few released are under strict limitations), one-sided sanctions on "political editing" are still happening, etc.

And so, even after the removal of the old bureaucrats, all of the problems described in this document still exist.

Note (2) - In this document, editors are sometimes described as "liberal/conservative/religious." These descriptions are the writers' assessment, based on either the editors' explicit own declarations on their user pages, or implicit via consistent expressions of position in discussions at the village pump, talk pages, and polls.

Note (3) - Naturally, many of the links to examples and references in this document will lead to pages in Hebrew. We're aware that this will probably make this case more difficult to follow, and would like to apologize in advance for the inconvenience. However, the weight of our claims demands that we show as much evidence as possible, so we chose to provide these links. We hope that the gravity of the situation will urge you to not give up, and either use some automatic translation or turn to a trusted Hebrew speaking acquaintance for assistance. Some of the links lead to a diff page, in an attempt to prove a specific quote in a talk page - in these cases please translate the page and use the search option of your browser to find the specified quote. We will willfully answer any question and clarify any ambiguity about these links and quotes, and provide further evidence on demand.

Detailed Presentation of the Case

edit

Chapter 1 - Background

Chapter 2 - Specific Cases of Misconduct

Our Request for Global Wikimedia Intervention

edit

As detailed in this document, hewiki hasn't been functioning properly, and in recent years has been increasingly diverging from the values and principles which are the basis of the global Wikimedia movement. Dominant senior permission holders, the old bureaucrats as admins and checkusers, do not respect the rules set by the community (the slogan is "the rules are meant to serve us and not the other way around", as was openly declared here, here and in other places). These privileged users concentrate excessive powers in their own hands and are gradually leading hewiki to an "authoritarian regime" - similar to processes that occurred in the past in Croatian Wikipedia, and to the political atmosphere in the state of Israel. Sadly, the election of new bureaucrats recently didn't bring about the remedy we were hoping for.

Following these matters, we turn to you, representatives of global Wikimedia, requesting intervention in Hebrew Wikipedia's activities. Our request is that you consider taking the following steps to return hewiki to proper operational course:

  1. Perform a thorough investigation of the events mentioned in this document, in order to find out which admins, checkusers and bureaucrats were involved in mass blocks, rule-bendings, selective enforcement and any other misconduct.
  2. Appoint an "imposed trusteeship" to oversight hewiki until its situation stabilizes and the global Wikipedia principles (transparency, neutrality, diversity and inclusion, non-harmful discourse) are fully assimilated.
  3. Guide hewiki community through the process of electing bureaucrats, administrators and checkusers, who were'nt involved in the hewiki takeover.
  4. Cancel the unilateral changes to rules and regulations, and guide the community through the proper procedures of setting the rules by community vote.
  5. Establish an appeals committee, chaired by a Wikimedia Foundation official, to review the blocks cast since June 2024 and release any user whose block cannot be justified with concrete evidence.
  6. Revoke the permissions of any permission holder who took part in taking over hewiki, and consider blocking them for a significant amount of time, or banning them from adminship.

Support

edit

If you have suffered from the events described in this RFC, or have witnessed them and can approve that what is described here is true, please add your signature below. If you have anything to add, please add it before your signature.

Discussion

edit

I have not read everything written here, but it is important to emphasize that the information is presented in a completely one-sided and biased manner, concealing the negative aspects of the actions taken by the blocked editors, as well as the awareness of the former bureaucrats that this was an emergency situation. Without taking a stance, I must note that the actions of the bureaucrats stemmed from a situation where in any vote, the decision was not encyclopedic but rather an internal conflict between various factions on the political spectrum, often using improper means.

The bureaucrats acted by implementing blocks and temporarily halting parliamentary votes—a period that was extended due to some of them being on reserve duty. (The parliament reopened earlier this week, alongside the unblocking of several contributors who had made significant contributions to the project unrelated to politics, such as Danny W, who signed above.) Their assumption was that this would make Wikipedia less political, allowing for proper adherence to NPOV (neutral point of view).

A contrasting example can be seen in the Arabic Wikipedia, where political biases are evident. According to their perspective, the Israeli Chief of Staff is a terrorist seeking ethnic cleansing and genocide, whereas the terrorists who murdered, kidnapped, and raped mercilessly on October 7 are labeled freedom fighters. In contrast, the Hebrew Wikipedia strives to combat political biases on both sides of the political spectrum. (It is worth noting that, apart from the liberals who approached Meta and made considerable noise, dozens of conservatives were also blocked.)

Additionally, the false impression presented by איתמראפשר that the Hebrew Wikipedia is in turmoil under the actions of the former bureaucrats is incorrect. Many Wikipedians support the actions of the bureaucrats, which have significantly reduced bias in the article space on both sides. (On a personal note, I identify—despite not engaging in politics at all—with one of the factions from which most of the blocked editors originate. I believe the blocks saved Wikipedia from politically motivated decisions, though I agree with the sentiment that losing contributing editors is unfortunate. For example, you can see on the he:ויקיפדיה:בירורים page that there is now a proposal to unblock another editor who contributed significantly. Many, including those who opposed the unblocking a few months ago, now support it due to her promise to cease improper vote recruitment activities.)

I will try to read the materials and respond later. However, as someone who was not involved in reviewing the findings, I cannot provide answers to most questions. I am speaking as someone who has observed the developments on Wikipedia and regrets seeing the blocking of several editors he greatly respects and has worked with on several occasions—most of whom remain blocked. Neriah - 💬 - 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neriah's last paragraph says it all: he admits that he didn't see any evidence against the editors who were blocked, but still he quotes the "official narrative" about the so called "state of emergency", "recruited groups" etc. as if they were verified facts. It's a matter of sheer belief, or faith, which acoording to his own words, is not based on anything but rumors and hearsay. Also, his claims that many editors support the bureaucrats' acgions is unverifiable, as no poll was made before or after they took these actions, and if a poll would be made it would not include dozens of opposers - because they've been blocked... איתמראשפר (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No survey has been conducted on the matter, but from numerous discussions among editors, it is clear that many support the actions, spanning both ends of the political spectrum. This does not negate the existence of opposition to these actions; there are always dissenters. I, too, oppose some of the disproportionate actions that were taken, as well as certain blocks imposed on veteran editors (incidentally, most of whom are liberal, and some of them have added their signatures here). I am more than willing to see these editors return. However, it is important to remember that the actions, even if extreme and disproportionate, have contributed in some way or another.
In addition, perhaps I did not explain myself well, but I am familiar with the evidence against some of the blocked editors, though not all of them. This is not a matter of belief. The bureaucrats were entrusted with the community's confidence upon their appointment. Therefore, even those who oppose these actions should believe that the bureaucrats are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, not against them. This would allow for better dialogue and a compromise that could enable the return of all blocked editors (of course, except for those identified as sock puppets or through checkuser).
I hope this will be my final message on this matter. I have invested considerable time in this complaint and do not believe anything beneficial can emerge from it for either side.
Thanks. Neriah - 💬 - 10:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please pay attention to the revision history: A left-leaning editor who added his signature to this appeal encountered incitement and threats from right-leaning editors and administrators, including a right-leaning bureaucrat, and subsequently removed it. This is a striking example for anyone seeking to understand the current state of Hebrew Wikipedia. It is evident that outside help is needed. I am adding my signature to this appeal. Thank you - La Nave Partirà (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I observed is that this editor did not read the entire text and assumed it referred to the previous bureaucrats who had blocked him. When the new bureaucrats wrote to him on his talk page, he apologized, stated that he shared the criticism of the former bureaucrats but not the new ones, and subsequently removed his block. I will translate his statement, found in his talk page on Hebrew Wikipedia: "I admit that I did not read the entire text but only part of it. I share the anger against the former bureaucrats who unjustly blocked me, but I do not share the criticism against you. Therefore, I have now removed my signature there."
    La Nave, I know you as a dedicated and honest editor, and I regretted your block because it meant we lost your contributions to the mainspace. It pains me that you, someone I respect, chose to exploit the fact that those responsible for handling this request do not speak Hebrew and cannot verify the details themselves, to write false statements that harm the new bureaucrats—who genuinely did nothing to you—while associating them with (incorrect) political factions and describing their actions in unblocking as political.
    Danny was unblocked this week in an action by the same "right-leaning bureaucrat" you claimed threatened him. I think instead of accusing him of harming the project, it's appropriate to express gratitude. Thank you, Erez, for lifting Danny’s block, thereby enabling him to return and contribute to the mainspace—a contribution that was sorely missed during his months of blocking. Neriah - 💬 - 07:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to get unblocked, Danny had to promise he won't vote in polls, won't participate in talks, and won't edit in "political articles" (a conveniently ambigious term). It's also worth noting that he removed his signature only after a group of right leaning users, including the bureaucrat Erez, attacked him on his talk page for signing, blamed him for "being ungreatful" and insinuated they might regret the unblock. 77.137.79.99 07:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to believe those around me. Danny could have written that he chose to remove his signature to avoid getting involved in the dispute about the bureaucrats, but he chose to write that he hadn’t read everything, and since the matter concerns the new bureaucrats as well as the old ones, he decided to remove his signature. This is what led me to make my previous statement, but it would be good if Danny could respond himself. That way, we’ll know the exact reason. Neriah - 💬 - 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Neriah is right. I agree with the written about the previous bureaucrats. However, when I signed, I did not read the text to the end. When I realized that complaints were also made about the new bureaucrats, I removed my signature. It's too bad that there is no distinction. Danny-w (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Danny-w (talk)There is no separation between the previous bureaucrats and one of the new bureaucrats, who barely passed the vote, because he continues exactly the path of the previous ones. He continues with the investigations and demands for personal documents. He did you no favor by releasing you under humiliating conditions, because you did not break any rules on the Hebrew Wiki and did not receive a warning as required. אמא של (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Danny-w, after seeing the threats and allegations of "ungratefulness" on your talk page after you signed this RFC, I don't blame you for stepping back. You are such a devoted Wikipedian, that you'd agree to any humiliating terms only to get back to editing, and I understand that the last thing you want is to get blocked again for the terrible crime of asking Wikimedia to examine the situation in hewiki from up close. I only have to address your claim that we didn't make a distinction between the previous and the new bureaucrats: of course we did. We have addressed the change of bureaucrats several times, in several sections of the RFC, and we have shown why that change of personnel did not bring about the hoped change in conduct. I love you and respect you so much, you are one of the best Wikipedians I've ever known, and I wish you many more years of quality contributions. איתמראשפר (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that איתמראשפר was banned from Wikipedia after he opened WhatsApp groups for political influence on Wikipedia, and then even threatened another user, which caused him to be declared a troll. He sees Wikipedia editing as a political struggle, not a struggle to create a free encyclopedia. He continues his bias attempt here, after being removed from the Hebrew Wikipedia. ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me that Itamar (איתמראשפר) deeply cares about Hebrew Wikipedia. Indeed it seems that we have a group of people who deeply care about the Hebrew language Free encyclopedia. However right now this series of endless non-constructive discussions serve little to actually fix root causes of the problems. Tzafrir (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tzafrir I totally agree with you, and I urge you to read the entire RFC and tell me if you found any mistake or untruth in it. I'll be happy to correct any such error you'll find. Although I didn't write all of the RFC, I sure proof-read it more than once and visited the links to make sure they support the claims they're linked to. I do wish hewiki community could handle the situation and fix it without any help from outside, but so far it seems that it's not hapenning. איתמראשפר (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very first thing I noticed was your note that the hewiki settled on roughly 7000 editors in 2010, with a link to a graph that is only for 2003-20010, whereas the hewiki continued to grow. Also, as someone else noted, if you mentioned the title given to Orit Strook in 2013, you should also mention that this was reverted in 2022. Your note about The Biblical story about Moses refers to an edit in Wikidata and not in hewiki (by a user that seems to edit in yiwiki. And was fixed a while later by a user of hewiki). This is just in 1.1 and 1.2 and without reading it too carefully. Tzafrir (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tzafrir The graph clearly shows a halt in hewiki's growth around 2007, at roughly 7,000 users. But the document doesn't claim that it stayed at that size ever since - it's just the beginning of the hewiki story, and it's obvious from the text: it mentions further growth after 2010, with more graphs, especially two peaks which are correlated with Yesha Council's "zionist editing" courses and Hidavroot's "atheist Wikipedia" campeigns. It goes further on to mention even further growth in later years.
Regarding Orit Strook, the false information was inserted not long after Yesha Council's courses began, by a 55% majority of either nationalist editors or by editors who have no idea what a "human right activist" is, and didn't bother to check. This clear outright falsehood took almost 10 years to fix, woth endless discussions in the talk page, another vote which was won by 52.5%, and only after many liberal users joined Wikipedia during the years of en:2018–2022 Israeli political crisis.
Regarding the mount Sinai, the Hebrew description "a historical event" was added in mid 2017. That falsehood stayed untouched for two years, until changed to the ambigious "biblical event" in 2019, and only in late 2022 it was fixed to the correct term: "biblical story". So it's the same pattern again like Orit Strook: a religious/nationalist falsehood is inserted during the decade of religious/nationalist takeover, no one bothers or succeeds in removing it, until the political crisis in Israel caused many liberal and secular users to join and fix things. The fact that many liberals joined hewiki since 2019 and started to turn the ship around, and that the mass blocks of editors and refusal to give liberals admin permissions are the reaction to this process, is one of this document's claims, and I think it provids enough evidence to prove it.
If you look through talk pages you'll find some religious nationalists grunt about "activists joining Wikipedia during the last 3-4 years". Remember that the original bureaucrats' plan was to limit voting right to users with 5,000(!) edits or more, which practically mean users who joined hewiki before 2020 or so. Don't you see the correlation? איתמראשפר (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their plan was to make voting less common and make people resort to other means before that, and try to avoid votes as the usual way of conflict resolution. This limitation was intended to only be part of that. It saddens me to see that not much has been done towards that goal. Tzafrir (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tzafrir as you may know, I was one of the leading voices against polls in hewiki, even before it became a popular stance (note that it began to be popular only when the religious/nationalists started to lose). I was very active in discussions about minimizing the need for polls, and over the years I have suggested several alternative methods to solve disputes, but usually received the response "yeah, it's a bad way, but we never found a better one". The bureaucrats' plan to allow only super veteran users to vote is not a way to minimize votes but to maintain the control of "the old guard" over content. איתמראשפר (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ס.ג'יבלי you have told me personally that you didn't see any evidence which supports these allegations, so it's obvious that you too are just quoting what you were told by the privious bureaucrats. I didn't open any WhatsApp group, I didn't try to create any political influence in Wikipedia, and I'm just one of several authors in this RFC. If you choose to believe any story you're told, that's your choice and I respect it, but please don't echo these stories as if they're facts, because then you're offending me, and that's against Wikipedia code of conduct. איתמראשפר (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor's response following the support by Anderssøn79:

  • An interesting decision to add your signature here. You have been identified as a 'troll' following long-term harassment of multiple users, cementing your place among the ranks of disruptive individuals. This follows your blocking, which was due to harassment of other editors originating from your IP address.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Severe_Problems_in_hewiki&oldid=28060675"