Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki/Elimination of Opposition

< Requests for comment | Severe Problems in hewiki
  Please Note
This page is a part of an elaborate RFC about the situation in Hebrew Wikipedia. As such, I consider it to be on-topic and fitting to the inclusion policy. If you think otherwise, please contact me before deleting it.

<< back to main Hewiki Problems RFC page

Chapter 2.1 - Elimination of Opposition

This is a serious accusation, but the evidence presented below raises concerns that some bureaucratic actions may stem from a desire to preserve their power and silence those who dispute their actions. In total, 59 editors with voting rights were blocked or restricted from voting. The number of active editors (5+ monthly edits) in hewiki is around 1,200, so blocking 5% of them is equivalent to blocking two thousand active editors in English Wikipedia, but it gets worse: only about 300 hewiki editors have voting rights, and most polls having fewer than 100 participants. All of the blocked editors had voting rights, so the mass blockings actually amounts to about 20% of eligible voters. Polls are often decided by a single vote, so such blocking creates profound influence on the article namespace - and more significantly, on the election of admins, checkusers and bureaucrats. It's worth mentioning that 41 of the blocked editors have previously voted for ending the adminship of one of the bureaucrats, and many of them have expressed dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic actions described in section 2.4 above.

2.1.1 Mass Blockings

edit

On June 2nd, 2024, bureaucrats announced permanent blocks on 43 editors, claiming "identity between them and other users, and activity patterns that definitively identify them as part of an organised effort to damage both Wikipedia's voting and discussion mechanisms in order to promote an agenda". A second group of unspecified size and membership was blocked from WP namespace and lost voting rights, and a third group received a warning and was asked to "voluntarily abstain from voting in the coming year". The bureaucrats referred to those blocked as "recruits or sockpuppets" and refused to reveal any evidence against them or explain how they reached that conclusion, claiming "sophisticated editors learned our checking methods and employed various means to evade detection". They announced that the investigations were conducted in cooperation with several additional editors, who also served as advisors regarding the blocks, but refused to reveal who these editors were. Blocks were implemented without prior warning and without the possibility to appeal. After several veteran editors questioned the move and noted that at least some of those blocked were certainly real people and contributing editors, the bureaucrats wrote that the results weren't final, and promised that if someone was blocked by mistake, their block would be reversed. However, so far no unblocking request was approved. In fact, only a few such requests received any response at all, as can be seen on this list.

On June 9th, the bureaucrats announced another wave of blocks, this time permanently blocking five editors, including very veteran ones. Additionally, eight editors were blocked from voting and from WP namespace, and three were warned. One of those permanently blocked was Danny-w, an editor with 18 years of experience and a popular candidate for bureaucrat, whose candidacy was cancelled following his block. Here too, blocks were implemented with the general claim that those blocked "recruited and were recruited to bias polls," but without presenting any evidence, even to the blocked users themselves, and without any warning prior to the block.

After protests about the inability to appeal the blocks, blocked users were granted the permission to write on their talk pages. Twenty of them submitted appeals this way, but none received a response, except for two editors whose appeal was summarily rejected.

Over ten editors have submitted Requests for Comment to Meta regarding their blocks, but so far these requests appear to have received little attention. The bureaucrats were tagged in some of these requests, but they ignored the tags and didn't join the discussion.

Later, the bureaucrats and some of their helpers hinted several times that checks hadn't concluded, and that about thirty additional editors were "in the crosshairs". However, so far no additional blocking waves occurred. It's unclear why these statements were made, as they don't warn about specific activity or editors, and don't contribute to the project or its atmosphere. These statements could be interpreted as threats against editors in order to keep them from criticizing the bureaucrats.

2.1.2 Individual Blockings

edit

Beyond mass blockings, several cases of permanent blocks, requests for mandatory mentoring or threats occurred, mostly with questionable justifications, all targeting prominent and veteran editors from the liberal side of the political spectrum. Here are some cases:

  • Ithamareshpar - After rejecting his permanent block during mass blockings and refusing to admit to accusations, he continued writing anonymously. After being harassed by one of the admins, by erasing his anonymous messages, Ithamar wrote an angry and offensive message on that admin's talk-page, and as a punishment he was declared as a troll - without the proper procedure and despite doing no vandalism or disclosure of personal information, which are the usual reasons for Troll Declaration.
  • Ima Shel - Blocked for two months without warning or prior similar offense, for stating "right-winged men took over Wikipedia" after receiving insults and ill will from a user and a bureaucrat in the same discussion.
 Background Elimination of Opposition Changing the Rules Ad Hoc 
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Severe_Problems_in_hewiki/Elimination_of_Opposition&oldid=28060507"