Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki/Improper Procedures

  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 2.3 - Improper Procedures

In many cases, improper procedures took place - some were actual violations of rules, some were abuse of authority, and some fell into the category of "it's not done". These procedures were carried out by bureaucrats, administrators, or one of their close associate editors. They harmed editors, but were not addressed. Here are several examples:

2.3.1 Blocking and Deleting Talk Pages

Several messages were deleted from talk pages despite not containing profanity or personal information (see here, here and here), and talk pages of articles and users were blocked with various levels of protection, with the stated purpose of preventing anonymous and blocked users from writing on them (see here, here and here). The users who owned these talk pages did not request their pages to be blocked, and even protested against the deletion of content from their talk page (see this edit summary). In at least one case, a protection level restricting access to system operators only was placed on the talk page of a user who was declared a troll against procedures, solely because a veteran user wrote a message protesting against this declaration on that page.

2.3.2 Blocking Veteran Users Without Reason or Warning

Beyond the mass blocks mentioned above, in which dozens of editors, some of them veterans, were blocked without warning, several additional blocks of this type were carried out during the years of the self-coup and war, mostly targeting liberal editors, sometimes as a "balancing action". For example, on January 12, 2024, the religious-nationalist editor Yaakov was blocked for a month without prior warning - but three days later, the block was shortened to 10 days, and "in exchange" three liberal editors (Ima Shel, sofiblum, and IthamarEshpar) were blocked without any warning, with the only justification being that they "argue and dispute in the article space over every step, stride, and comma". The blocking administrator refused to present any concrete incident that led to blocking the three, and ignored veteran editors, including a former bureaucrat, who argued that such "balance blocking" is neither acceptable nor justified.

The liberal editor La Nave Partira was also blocked without warning, initially for a week over a single comment on a talk page, and then permanently due to "persistent attempts to present every message or action of ours in a way that fits your narrative, even when these things completely contradict the explanation given for these actions". La Nave Partira was also accused of approaching many editors and asking them to vote for specific candidates for checkuser - but no evidence was presented for these accusations, which she denied. Strangely, one bureaucrat insisted the accusations were true while the other bureaucrat deleted them and wrote in the edit summary that they were mistakenly copied from a message to a different editor.

2.3.3 Blocks as Deterrence Instead of Protection

In the block notices of the three liberal editors mentioned in the previous section, it was explicitly written that "the purpose of these blocks is to make clear to all editors that meaningless political arguments... will no longer be permitted here". According to the rules, blocking is defined as a defensive measure, and using long-term blocks of veteran and prominent users as deterrence is an unreasonable action.

2.3.4 Ignoring Appeals and Wikimedia Meta RFCs

As can be seen in this table, 23 of the mass-blocked editors submitted appeals against their blocks on their talk pages - only two of them received a response, which in both cases was an outright rejection of the appeal, without any willingness to examine their claims in depth. 12 of the blocked editors submitted requests for comment on Meta, but they too did not receive any response from the bureaucrats, despite the tags and explicit requests from editors who commented on the requests (see here for an example of constant ignoring of repeated appeals).

2.3.5 "They Know What They've Done"

Following the sudden and unexplained mass blocks, several editors expressed concern that they too would be blocked, and tried to clarify if they were okay or if perhaps they too were doing something wrong. The responses received were along the lines of "they know very well why they were blocked", "they know exactly why they were blocked" or "the violation is known to all - even to those playing innocent". These responses, reminiscent of secret police expressions in dark regimes, contradict the enormous number of editors who wrote that they don't understand why they were blocked (and have yet to receive an answer), and go against Wikipedia's principles of transparency.

2.3.6 Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Beyond ignoring editors who filed complaints to Wikimedia Foundation or appealed their blocks on their talk pages, there were additional cases of delay of justice. For example, the editor Ima Shel was permanently blocked because she gave her password to a blocked editor when she encountered technical problems accessing Wikipedia during a trip outside Israel. Both her and the checkusers confirmed that this editor did not use the password to edit in the main namespace, but only in a specific talk page, and that he only pasted texts that she had sent him for this purpose. Several administrators and editors requested to cancel the indefinite block, arguing that there was no justification for such a severe punishment for this violation, which was undoubtedly done by mistake. The bureaucrats waited a month before lifting the block.

Another example is the user conduct RFC filed against the editor Gilgamesh, who, according to testimonies on the RFC, has been bullying other editors for years. Although the discussion about him dragged on for a long time and accumulated testimonies from many editors, the bureaucrats avoided intervening (except for hastily blocking the complainant so she couldn't participate in the discussion). Only after a month did the bureaucrat "Bikoret" summarize the discussion, with no sanctions or warnings towards Gilgamesh, and the discussion was archived minutes later.

Another example is the event in which the editor Ithamareshpar was accused of threatening in legal action against another editor. The accusation was based on a general statement in a copyright discussion, where he said that his partner, an IP lawyer, told him that an editor who distorted the words of an Israeli archeologist might be exposed to a lawsuit for violation of moral rights, if that archeologist finds out about it. Although IthamarEshpar repeatedly emphasised that he had no intention of suing or recommending any third party to sue, and that his words were said casually and with the intention of warning that editor that he might get into trouble, the bureaucrat Garfield blocked him for two weeks, without warning, while promising to delve deeper into the matter later - a promise he didn't keep. Despite repeated requests, apologies, and clarifications, Garfield refused to examine the incident and simply let the two weeks of the block run their full course.

Several more examples of foot-dragging and delay of justice can be seen here, in decisions regarding the appointments of new admins:

1. The decision regarding the candidate Neria took 20 days from the end of the discussion and was given after several reminders.
2. In the discussion about the liberal candidate Danny Gershoni, conservative editors claimed that he wasn't involved in patrolling. Patrolling was never a requirement for adminship, but the bureaucrats accepted these claims, and conditioned his appointment on him patrolling for three months, although he received 64% support from the community. Danny quickly became the second most active patroller in hewiki, but the bureaucrats never appointed him as a system administrator. A few months later, they blocked him indefinitely claiming undisclosed paid editing (again without presenting any evidence).
3. In the discussion about the liberal editor Axino, conservative editors raised the claim that he was politically biased. Axino refrained from editing political articles, as noted by him and many in the community and as can be seen from his contributions page, but the bureaucrats decided not to approve his permissions despite him receiving 73% support with an additional 8% supporting his appointment for a three-month trial period.

2.3.7 Centralization of Power

The problematic phenomenon of centralization of power already exists in Wikipedia - for example, a system administrator can also be a checkuser - but in Hebrew Wikipedia, this phenomenon is particularly common: out of five checkusers, four are system administrators. The selection of administrators in Wikipedia is also subject to the exclusive discretion of bureaucrats, even in cases of overwhelming community support (as in the cases of Axino and Danny Gershoni described above). During the year of the self-coup and war, the phenomenon worsened: the bureaucrats took more powers for themselves, first by implementing the "Bridge over Troubled Water" policy which allowed them to block and delete articles and editors at their own discretion; by unilaterally changing the criteria for voting eligibility; and by locking the Parliament and refusing to open a poll that had passed the approval procedures.

Furthermore, after the mass blocks, the bureaucrats published an announcement about another new policy. According to that policy, disputes between parties will be decided between representatives of each side in the dispute, but if there is no agreement on the representatives - they will be appointed by bureaucrats; disputes on political issues will be decided by a "political committee" - headed by a bureaucrat; voting rights will only be given to those who "prove contribution to the article space" and "know how to write in an encyclopedic and reliable manner" - an obscure criteria which will presumably be decided the bureaucrats; and administrators will be authorized to impose "topic blocks" for a minimum period of six months on certain editors, with no option to appeal. This proposal greatly enhances the power of bureaucrats and administrators, and diminishes the power of editors - who will be under constant supervision and threat. The proposal was not received enthusiastically, and was not officially accepted, but nevertheless there were several attempts to act according to it.

For example, in the first version of the policy, there was a clause stating that only bureaucrats could nominate candidates for system administrators. After community reservations were raised about this, the clause was changed so that anyone could nominate candidates for administrators, the community will only be allowed to express reservations to the candidates (and not support), and the bureaucrats would eventually decide whether the reservations are significant enough to prevent granting the permission. Although this policy is still a draft, and was never voted upon, the bureaucrats implemented it to propose a poll on several candidates for adminship, claiming that this is a temporary and one-time interim proposal offered only "due to the difficulty of the recent period in appointing administrators and in votes" - a difficulty which happened because of the bureaucrats' prevention of most votes since June 2024.

2.3.8 Gaslighting and Misrepresentation of Truth

In many cases, the bureaucrats behaved in a manner unbecoming of their role, when they ignored appeals and presented false representations. For example:

1. When they wanted to hold a poll for admins they suggested, according to the new policy (which wasn't accepted), they wrote that the poll would take place "only if broad community agreement is given here to this proposal". In the discussion that developed, 17 editors supported the proposal versus 10 who opposed it, meaning there was less than 63% support - yet the bureaucrats started the poll anyway, claiming there was "consensus" in its favor.
2. The veteran liberal editor Danny Waks was blocked indefinitely during the second wave of blocks. No specific accusation was pointed at him, but there were some general remarks about the blocked editors "recruiting editors to vote" via a WhatsApp group. On his talk page, Danny Waks wrote a clarification message, explaining "I was added to a group as a veteran user to guide new editors on technical wikipedia matters, and in retrospect I found out that it was a group of liberal editors". In his message emphasized that "I did not engage in recruiting for polls, but only in guidance about Wikipedia and answering questions... I did not recruit or solicit for votes in any way". However, the bureaucrat Garfield wrote that Danny "admitted to what he was accused of", a statement that established a false narrative that was subsequently spread by additional editors (for example here and on other occasions).

Changing the Rules Ad Hoc

Improper Procedures

Selective Enforcement