'Zionism Has Ancient Jewish Roots? Who Cares?' Say Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia editors shrug off Zionism's ancient roots

If you want to understand how completely broken Wikipedia is for anything related to Israel—how slanted, how fallacious, how downright delusional—look at the discussion currently underway on the "talk" or discussion page of the Zionism article, which has been twisted into anti-Zionist propaganda by anti-Zionist editors.

It's a matter of historical fact that Zionism is embedded in Jewish texts and practice going back to the fall of the Second Temple. But the anti-Zionist editors who control the Zionism article don't care about history. They care only about their agenda, which is to use Wikipedia as a weapon in their fight against Israel's existence.

An editor named "MaskedSinger" raised one of the numerous falsehoods and distortions in the article, the claim right at the top of the article that Zionism "emerged in Europe in the late 19th Century." 

He wrote:

This is patently untrue. If you want to go back to the start, it began when the Children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt. After the exodus, they were making their way back to Israel. They had to wander in the desert for 40 years but then conquered the land under the leadership of Joshua. Fast forward however many hundred years and they were exiled from the land, but the desire to return was crystalised than and there. Sure, with raging and horrible anti-semitism in Europe in the late 19th century Zionism become more prominent and relevant, but it didn't begin then. By then, the concept was already thousand of years old.

One only has to read Psalm 137 - By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, yea, we wept, When we remembered Zion.

Clearly the origins of Zionism predate the early 19th Century and are not European. They go back a millennia. But the anti-Zionist editors would have none of it. They want to portray Zionism as a European colonial movement. They want that far up in the article and they will fight fiercely to keep it that way.

So the pushback was fierce. A core group of anti-Zionist editors suddenly materialized and immediately began "tag teaming" to push their point, no doubt coordinating their actions offsite. 

"Your sources are the Bible and Wikipedia? Right," sneered the anti-Zionist editor Selfstudier, who recently larded one of his talk-page comments with an antisemitic trope. Actually "MaskedSinger" had simply linked to a Wikipedia article, he had not used it as a source. Misrepresenting what other editors have just said is contrary to Wikipedia rules, but is a common practice of the anti-Zionist contingent.

"My sources are world history," the new editor responded.

Then came the threats. 

When pro-Hamas editors encounter new editors who challenge their control of articles, they resort to threats to have the "enemy" sanctioned by cooperative administrators: "If your sources aren't WP:RS, you're disrupting this page," responded the anti-Zionist editor "Levivich."  "Disruptive" editors are subject to sanctions.

To drive the point home, "Levivich" followed up with an even cruder threat to lower the boom on "MaskedSinger" for daring to challenge their control of the Zionism article: 

"If I wasn't already knee deep in a big SPI draft, I'd be filing at ANI or AE . . . about somebody bludgeoning this talk page claiming the Bible is an RS. At the very least we should all stop engaging with this nonsense." 

"SPI" is a "sockpuppet investigation" draft, meaning he is planning to accuse another editor of using multiple accounts. "ANI" and "AE" are acronyms for disciplinary boards. Lastly, "nonsense" translates to "disagreeing with anti-Zionist editors." 

Nableezy struts his stuff

"This isn’t the world according to the Bible. Or rather the world according to one person on the internet’s understanding of the Bible," said the veteran pro-Hamas editor "Nableezy," noted for proclaiming his support for "armed struggle" (terrorism) on his personal Wikipedia "user" page.

The discussion has droned on since then, with "MaskedSinger" outnumbered and therefore destined to lose—if he's lucky. If he's not lucky, he'll be kicked out of Wikipedia or otherwise sanctioned, as threatened.

"Talk page" discussions deal with "sources" and "policies." They matter for most Wikipedia articles. But for articles on Israel it ultimately comes down to one thing: numbers. Numbers mean control. The anti-Zionist editors have the numbers, the organization and the determination, They decide which sources are "reliable" or not. They determine which "policies" will be obeyed and which will be ignored. 

'Best sources' on Zionism, as determined by an anti-Zionist Wikipedian

Two hours after "MaskedSinger" dared to contradict the anti-Zionist poison in the Zionism article, "Levivich" rushed to create a list of "best sources" top-heavy with anti-Zionist polemics, to ensure that anti-Zionist views dominate the article going forward, and to reinforce the anti-Zionist determination to ignore ancient Jewish texts that provide the very basis for Zionism. He posted them directly below MaskedSinger's post on the Zionism article talk page.

It all comes down to numbers. On any given issue, what matters is which numbers of editors can be scraped together offsite to support or oppose what the anti-Zionist editors want. And what the anti-Zionist editors want is an anti-Zionist Zionism article.

The "origins of Zionism" discussion is still underway at this writing but its outcome is preordained.

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors Fight to Control 'Zionism' Article

Fix the anti-Zionist slant? No way. Reinforce it? Sure!

Ever since my blog item appeared on the Wikipedia Zionism article, there have been complaints on social media about how the article had been transformed into an anti-Zionist polemic. These were picked up by the Jewish-American press, and today it caught the attention of the Israeli media.

Author Hen Mazzig observed on X that the article's disparagement of Ashkenazi Jewish links to the Holy Land mirrors the discredited Khazar theory of Jewish origins. The Zionism article, he said, "isn't just inaccurate, it's downright antisemitic." Wikipedia, he said, "has become a hate site." Congressman Ritchie Torres said on X that "Wikipedia caricatures Zionism" and engaged in a "warped telling of history" by branding Zionists as "colonizers."  

The 'Khazar' theory

Wikipedia advertises itself as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." That is how it sells itself to the donors and NGOs that pour money into its coffers, providing top people at the Wikimedia Foundation with enormous salaries (see Schedule J, here). So naturally, once they became aware of the terrible state the Zionism article was in, a number of people—established editors and newcomers alike—tried to rid the article of its anti-Zionist and antisemitic slant. 

The result is an exhibition of the control that pro-Hamas editors over the Zionism article and others, how Wikipedia's processes are rigged in their favor, and how nearly impossible it is to dislodge them. 

Much of the activity is taking place on the "talk" or discussion page of the article, which now appears like this.

First a long-established editor weighed in with an explanation of how the lead paragraph gave excessive weight to "a particular interpretation of Zionism as a specific form, namely the 19th century through 1930s versions of Zionism," ignoring its future evolution,

Ignoring their points entirely, their argument was dismissed in a one-sentence reply ("I disagree. The thing in itself as described by the best academic sources is the way to go") by the anti-Zionist editor Dan Murphy, an ex-reporter whose peculiar claim to fame (a disgusting, mocking tweet on the ISIS beheading of hostage Steve Sotloff) I described in a previous blog post.

And on it went, on and on and on. It was the beginning of a 4700-word back-and-forth that is still underway at this writing, involving multiple editors. That's not 4700 words over a period of weeks or months. That's 4700 words over one single day. This discussion began only yesterday and it has already stretched into such astonishing length.

That is typical of discussions when the Wikipedia Flood of pro-Hamas editors are involved. They just go on and on and won't let up, pouring on the verbiage in wearisome and repetitive quantities. As I described in a blog post last month, Wikipedia talk pages under the control of anti-Israel editors use such methods to wear down their opponents, using the sheer numbers that they can bring to bear. 

The reaction to the Zionism article's sorry state brought out another asset in the pro-Hamas editors' arsenal: the "extended confirm" rule.

Anti-Zionist editors' control of the articles is enhanced by that rule, which requires that in the "Israel/Palestine" subject area you must have thirty days on Wikipedia and 500 edits in order to edit an article or even discuss the subject on the "talk" page. 

What this means, in a practical sense, that the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is actually an encyclopedia that, in relevant subject ares, is dominated by a handful of pro-Hamas operatives, with the aid of feckless, biased and passive site administrators.

Yes, you can make an "edit request" if you don't meet the "extended confirm" requirement. See how two such requests were handled. They are in the illustration at the top of the page.

First came a request to change anti-Zionist language in the lead paragraph back to where it was before it became anti-Zionist. That was shot down easily. It was "under discussion above" by editors who met the "extended-confirm" rule. That nicety was happily pointed out by one of the anti-Zionist editors.

Then cane a request to reinforce the anti-Zionist language in the lead with a footnote from a book about "settler colonialism." Of course! Consider it done.

The Wikipedia Flood does not like scrutiny. Within the past few hours, the anti-Zionist ex-reporter Murphy complained about the social media and press attention the article had been getting, in a section he sneeringly titled "Bat Signal."  

Murphy's word choice, which he borrowed from the Batman comics, gives an idea of the arrogance and condescension many Wikipedia editors display toward the outside world. They are both hypersensitive to and dismissive of external attention, even though everything they do is visible to the outside world.

Pro-Hamas editors like Murphy do their article-slanting in the open. Every single word that they write is a matter of public record for all to see. This entire blog is an accumulation of what they do and write on one of the world's most trafficked and influential websites. 

So when the pro-Hamas editor "Selfstudier" makes use of an antisemitic slur ("pound of flesh") on a discussion page, it's right there in plain view for everyone to see. One does not require any special access. You just simply have to go on the web and read.

Yet they just can't stand it when anyone holds up a mirror to what they do.  

Anti-Zionist Editors Trash Wikipedia 'Zionism' Article

Anti-Zionist spin in red (click to enlarge)

As part of our continuing series of blog items focusing on Wikipedia articles trashed by anti-Israel editors, a good example is the article on Zionism.

The article, which currently looks like this, reads as if it was written by a coterie of anti-Zionist activists. Because it was.

The slanting of the article, almost certainly coordinated offsite, took place in a spasm of edits by pro-Hamas editors subsequent to Oct. 7, when the article was reasonably stable and was not heavily edited. At the time of the "Al Aqsa Flood" slaughter in the Gaza Envelope, it provided a balanced and neutral depiction of Zionism, noting criticism by anti-Zionists but not giving undue emphasis to it. Then the Wikipedia Flood invaded the article.

It took a lot of hard work by pro-Hamas editors to turn the article on Zionism into anti-Zionist propaganda, with some of the most toxic changes happening in the past few weeks. 

On August 11, the prolific anti-Zionist editor "Levivich" added at the top of the article that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."  

The sourcing of that and other anti-Zionist statements includes a long roster of anti-Zionists. The sourcing of the statement cited above include anti-Israel extremists such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, infamous for his support of terrorism, all quoted at length in a footnote. 

On Wikipedia, Zionism is defined by people who hate Zionism. It's the Wikipedia way, as pointed out in this blog and in a recent Jewish Journal article. 

Anti-Zionist sourcing cited by anti-Zionist editors results in an anti-Zionist article that makes a mockery of Wikipedia's supposed "neutral point of view" policy. Thus the frequent and prominent references to Zionism as a "colonial" movement, and the watering down of text that points out that Zionism is actually a movement of return of an indigenous people to their homeland. 

A sentence that read 

This process was seen by the Zionist Movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland 

was edited to read 

The process of Jews moving or 'returning' to the land (around today's Palestine and Israel) they purportedly had been exiled from, was seen by the emerging Zionist movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland.

Note "purportedly" and how other language was added to downplay the roots of the Jewish people in the Holy Land, which is well-established historical fact.

An effort by an editor to return the article to its pre-Oct. 7 state was twice reverted today, with the results shown in the illustration at the top. The anti-Zionist poison is outlined in red.

The editor who sought to fix the article was promptly targeted by an administrator on grounds of "gaming the system," and was banned from the topic area.*  

The Zionism article is an excellent example of how anti-Zionism is baked into Wikipedia through slanted sourcing and a "flood" of well-established anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and often just plain antisemitic editors, who are allowed to run rampant by indifferent "administrators," often themselves anti-Israel, abetted by a do-nothing Arbitration Committee and a Wikimedia Foundation that looks that other way.

*In fairness, this editor did "game the system" by making trivial edits like this to inflate his edit count. To cement their control over the topic areas, pro-Hamas editors pushed through a rule requiring editors to have at least thirty days editing experience and 500 edits in order to edit "Israel/Palestine" articles.. In a previous blog item I warned against edit-inflation games to surmount this unfair rule.

Biased Sources Dictated by Biased Editors Mean Biased Articles

A new article is out in the Jewish Journal by the great Aaron Bandler on an issue that we've described several times in the past: how sources on Wikipedia are skewed against Israel. The article can be found here. 

In what world are Al Jazeera, MSNBC and Mother Jones considered reliable sources but Fox News, The New York Post and Daily Mail are not? Answer: Wikipedia, where editors can only summarize what reliable sources say …  or at least sources that Wikipedia editors have determined to be reliable.

How do the sources get skewed? It comes down to numbers, as we've said many times. The Wikipedia Flood has the numbers. Aaron also makes an important point, which is that bad sourcing leads to still more bad sourcing. Sources that are anti-Israel are used as justification for giving a blessing to the use of even worse sources. It's a kind of closed loop of bad sourcing.

But even there, it comes down to numbers and to the aggressive tactics the pro-Hamas editors use to get their way: bullying other editors, brazenly organizing offsite, and seeking to have the "enemy" tossed out of the subject area. 

One editor told me they’re optimistic that “over time pro-Hamas sources will be downgraded … Unfortunately I think all the scare tactics and firing squad tactics have made pro-Israel editors afraid to opine.”

Yet again, it comes back to numbers.

Pro-Hamas Wikipedia Editors Lay Siege to 'Screams Before Silence'

The largest section of the article is criticism

On occasion I'll briefly focus on a Wikipedia article that is a good example of pro-Hamas editors in action. Today I'll highlight the article on Screams Before Silence, the searing documentary on systematic rape of Israelis on Oct. 7.

In its current incarnation it looks like this. The article is ridiculously slanted. Its largest segment consists of criticism, in a section that is larger than the one above it, which describes the production of the film.

The bloated "Criticisms" [sic] section leads off with an attack on the documentary by the antisemitic propagandist Ali Abunimah, writing in the online blog "The Electronic Intifada." EI is a Hamas mouthpiece that is so far in the fringes that Wikipedia "deprecates" it. That designation means that it the "Electronic Intifada" is ranked even lower than the ADL, which Wikipedia recently ruled unusable on articles related to Israel.

Wikipedia has the following guideline for deprecated sources: 

The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred.  

It's not supposed to be used but it is used, because the rules do not apply to pro-Hamas editors. They have the numbers, the guile, and the offsite coordination to get their way. They are supported by the large number of Wikipedia editors and administrators who don't actively edit articles on Gaza but are hostile to Israel. As I mentioned to a non-editor only yesterday, the "Wikipedia flood" and its tools are not good-faith editors. They edit to push an agenda. In this case the agenda is to push the Hamas propaganda line denying that rapes took place. 

The other major source of criticism in the "criticisms" section is a YouTube video from "Breaking Points," also a pro-Hamas organ, whose host has lamented that Hamas doesn't have air power to use to kill Jews.

The two editors who inserted this material in the article, violating Wikipedia rules, have the user names Ïvana and Raskolnikov.Rev.   

"Ïvana" is the "resident expert" of the Discord channel that was the subject of the last two items in this blog, which can be found at this link and this one. Its aim is to turn Wikipedia articles into pro-Hamas propaganda, and rape denial is one of their primary tactics. Articles concerning Hamas's widespread sexual assaults on Oct. 7 are a subject of fierce attacks by anti-Israel editors like those two.

One of the pro-Hamas operatives working the article, "FourPi," smeared "Screams Before Silence" by putting it in the "propaganda technique" category. What makes this ironic is not just this editor is themselves a propagandist, but that they had no right to make this edit, or to edit Wikipedia at all. They are a "sockpuppet" of a banned editor and were themselves blocked a few days after making this edit.

The documentary is smeared as a 'propaganda technique'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

Pro-Hamas Wikipedia Collaboration Site Covers Its Tracks

 

Pro-Hamas operatives 'celebrate' being uncovered—shortly before covering their tracks

After my blog post "How Pro-Hamas Operatives Collaborate to Rig Wikipedia" appeared on Aug. 30, there was a predictable period of "Baghdad Bob"-type bravado among the subjects of the article. 

"Useful and moderately well researched," said one pro-Hamas user on the Discord.com "Wikipedia collaboration" board, which is used to coordinate anti-Israel editing on Wikipedia. Another, "Ashar," bragged about knowing a fine point of Wikipedia editing that stumped me (and would stump most Wikipedia editors) which is why I could get a previous version of a page that had been deleted. 

I still don't know. But Ashar does. That's because Ashar is obviously a longtime Wikipedia editor, as are almost all of the pro-Hamas Wikipedia editors profiled on this blog. They've been around for years, "owning" articles that they want to control, intimidating and bullying other editors and administrators.

The Discord site is strictly against Wikipedia rules, which of course do not apply to pro-Hamas Wikipedians any more than campus rules apply to the pro-Hamas rioters at universities. By engaging in such offsite coordination, they seek to pepper Wikipedia with pro-Hamas propaganda, and rig discussions that govern the editing and sourcing of articles, such as the "reliable sources" discussion that notoriously denigrated the ADL. 

The "resident expert" of the offsite collaboration channel, "Ïvana," began covering her tracks, deleting her posts, but that was only the beginning of the belated coverup.

"Pbiggar," coordinator of the "Techs for Palestine" Discord channel, which includes the Wikipedia collaboration site, posted as follows: "I read the article and have to say I wasn't aware the Wikipedia project was doing so well! Very informative, and congrats to all involved!" But then he added: "I guess we'll have to reconvene this a bit more privately—will check with leaders to figure out the next steps."

Oh really? "Leaders"? "Pbiggar" is described in his profile as "founder" and "project leader" of the "Tech for Palestine" Discord channel. Who does he report to? Whoever they are, they gave him a directive: close off the Wikipedia Collaboration channel to public view. He proceeded to do just that a few hours ago:

Note the excuse: "doxing." According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, "Dox" means "to publish private information about someone on the internet, without their permission and in a way that reveals their name, where they live, etc." There has been no doxing in this blog. As they have done with other words in the English language such as "massacre," which they have re-defined to mean "anything Israel does," Wikipedia's pro-Hamas operatives have redefined "dox" to mean "describing what we do."

The "leaders" to whom "pbiggar" reports don't want the outside world, and especially Wikipedia's timid, avoidant "administrators" and "arbitrators," to know what they do. But it's too late.  

Here's a partial list of the users who participated in the Discord Wikipedia channel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samisawtak 

discord username: samerbhh_83208

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZionistHater 
discord username: zionisthater22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WamelSlice

discord username: wamelslice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ïvana

discord username: ivana_0808

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:FDC0:7CE2:445B:7612:F5F0:C84 
discord username: r.2717

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rw29014life 
discord username: artemisbow99

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HadyaWaqfi

discord username: hadyawaqfi8150

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tashmetu

discord username: tbd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Isoceles-sai 

discord username: isoscelesprime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Discourseofcourse

discord username: pomme.de.discorrdde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ummahrican 

discord username: ummahrican

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ronnie_larko

discord username: tbd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sarachicad 
discord username: sarachicad_88189

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shushugah 

discord username: shushugah

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spécial:Contributions/Baderdean

discord username: .baderdean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tashmetu 

discord username: agent_na 

I guess I should feel flattered that they covered their tracks after my blog, since I did not "break the news" of the existence of the Discord channel. Jewish Insider, a respected newsletter, did that in June.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

How Pro-Hamas Operatives Collaborate to Rig Wikipedia (Updated)

"For anyone who wants to learn how to help the Palestinian cause using Wikipedia"

Updated 9/2/24 with further details on activities of pro-Hamas coordinator "Ïvana"; correcting error re subpage  

To achieve their goal of turning Wikipedia into a pro-Hamas propaganda site, Wikipedia's anti-Israel editors have to rig Wikipedia's processes. To rig Wikipedia's processes, they need numbers. They need organization. They need coordination. Achieving these goals must be effectuated offsite. Today I explore one of the many ways they do this.

On Wikipedia itself, they pose as dedicated, rule-enforcing, vandal-fighting, sockpuppet-exposing Wikipedia loyalists who want only to "improve the project." The mask comes off outside Wikipedia, where they perform the hard work of organizing, recruiting, and training newcomers via online seminars, like the regular Wednesday seminar advertised on Discord at the top of this page. 

This blog will mainly focus on the Discord effort, which is a kind of "war room" for the Wikipedia Flood. I will say at the outset that this is not a secret page. Subterfuge was not required to gain access to the Discord discussion group. Just ask. You'll get in. It was mentioned in this Jewish Insider article, resulting in zero consequences. It is not even mentioned in the ongoing "Arbitration Committee" case that I've written about. 

Going outside of Wikipedia in this manner is known as "stealth canvassing" that is strictly prohibited by the rules. But as this blog has documented, the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood. 

Pro-Hamas editors coordinate their efforts in various ways, mainly by emails among the participants. Thus the Discord effort is just one of various mechanisms in operation today. There is no doubt whatsoever that there are other off-wiki canvassing sites; the JI article also mentions exchanges on Telegram. The Discord channel was established in February 2024 and is part of “Tech for Palestine,” whose website can be found here. They describe themselves as "a loose coalition of 5,000+ founders, engineers, product marketers, community builders, investors, and other tech folks working towards Palestinian freedom."  

That's how they describe themselves, but there is nothing subtle about the Discord group. It is fiercely pro-Hamas, anti-Zionist and antisemitic. In the meeting notice at the top of this blog entry, note that the watermelon Hamas symbol is used denote "likes." The inverted red triangle, used by Hamas supporters to target Jews, and recently banned by Germany, is also used by this "peace and justice" group.

The Tech for Palestine Discord channel has about 8,000 members at present. Its Wikipedia Collaboration group describes itself as an instrument of the Gaza war for the elimination of Israel. Or as they put it, "fighting on the Wikipedia front the information battle for truth, peace, and justice."

"Welcome to Wikipedia Collaboration!"

Here's a close-up of the welcome message:

"Fighting on the Wikipedia front"

As noted in the welcome message, "Office Hours" are held weekly to coordinate their propaganda efforts, indoctrinate newcomers and train them for battle. A notice for a July event is at the top of this blog entry. The User:Samisawtak page referred to in the welcome announcement can be found here. Even though it was deleted at the end of July at the Samisawtak's request, it appears on Wikipedia here, showing as it appeared earlier that month. I cannot explain why this remained even though the page itself was deleted.

This blatant effort on Wikipedia to coordinate with an offsite canvassing effort has gone unnoticed even though the Discord offsite war room is actually mentioned multiple times on the "to do" list:

Here it calls the troops to remove "alleged" from a reference to "Palestinian genocide": 

In the Discord collaboration group itself, individual articles are targeted for a once-over by the pro-Hamas mob. In April, the coordinator, "Samer," announced that they have 78 articles to twist into Hamas propaganda.

The "resident expert" aiding newbies in their article-slanting is a dedicated pro-Hamas editor named "Ïvana," who is also mentioned in the Samisawtak on-wiki page. 

("Ïvana" changed her user name to "Movndshrovd" after this blog appeared, and then changed it back to "Ïvana" for some reason known only to them.) The person behind "Ïvana" almost certainly created it as a "sleeper sockpuppet" account, as the "Ïvana" account was created in December 2018 and then used only twice until May 2020, probably after other accounts were discovered and deleted. Their edit history shows that their original user name was "Ivanacccp." Why "cccp," Cyrillic for "USSR," was part of her original user name is anyone's guess. Could be nothing or it could explain their hatred of Israel.

In addition to the "to do list" above "Samisawtak" has a user subpage on Wikipedia devoted to the Discord "Wiki-collaboration effort." My apologies for previously reporting that Ïvana was maintaining this page. It was actually "Samisawtak," assuming they are different people. 

Here is how their Wikipedia subpage now appears. Props to the commenter to this blog who brought this to my attention. If "Samisawtak" has the page deleted, an archived version can be found here.

"Samisawtak" uses a Wikipedia page to flog the Discord offsite coordination effort

Just below, "Samisawtak" uses their Wikipedia platform to instruct the pro-Hamas edit-warriors to "go on https://discord.com/channels/1186702814341234740/1202698460684353537 and tell us which article/topic you'd like to start working on."

  "Ïvana"/"Movndshrovd" instructs her edit warriors to report their efforts to Discord

Further down on the page, "Samisawtak" provides helpful information on the offsite coordination effort.

"Samisawtak" then gives new recruits a helpful tip on how to inflate their edit count, so that they can meet the 30-day, 500-edit requirement for editing in the "Israel/Palestine" topic area. This is known on Wikipedia as "gaming the system," also against the rules but allowed for pro-Hamas editors.

"Samisawtak" goes on to provide subject areas to be covered in the Discord training sessions for pro-Hamas edit warriors.

Don't for a second believe that the Wiki-powers don't know about all this. They know that coordination with Discord is taking place on Wikipedia, using Wikipedia resources and their servers. As I mentioned earlier, the Discord operation was mentioned in this Jewish Insider article.  If Wikipedia's administrators and arbitrators don't know that offsite coordination of pro-Hamas content, it's because they don't want to know.

With help from Ïvana, Samer and the others, the Wikipedia Flood is directed on Discord into specific Wikipedia articles that need to be coaxed into propaganda pieces.  

Here editors are encouraged to brand the widespread Hamas rapes on Oct. 7 as a "hoax," citing an X post by the virulently antisemitic account "Zei_Squirrel," who regularly quoted in this group.

Here "Ïvana" points her people in the direction of an Administrators Noticeboard discussion in which "zionists [are] trying to force another editor to remove pro-palestinian/pro-resistance quotes from their profile." 

She was referring to this discussion, now archived, in which an editor complained about a pro-Hamas user quoting from the Hamas terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar on his user page, in blatant violation of Wikipedia rules, which don't allow user pages to be used for political "soapboxing." 

The AN discussion was flooded by pro-Hamas operatives, summoned to the page by "Ïvana," and ended with a pro-Hamas editor terminating the discussion without penalizing the pro-Hamas editor, not even giving him a warning. Involved editors are not supposed to terminate discussions, but of course the rules don't apply to pro-Hamas editors.  

Here Samer speaks of assembling a "blitz team" for an article on the Nuseirat hostage rescue operation, which the pro-Hamas mob had sought to portray as a "massacre." He cites a previous "blitz team" used for another article, on Lily Greenberg Call, and promises to bring it up at the June "office hours" conclave. (According to the Call article's edit history, the Call Wikipedia article, created by the so-called "expert" Ïvana, had to be initially expunged because it was cribbed from The Guardian.) It's not clear exactly what the "blitz team" did, other than plagiarize.

And so it goes, on and on and on. Samer, who evidently edits Wikipedia under an undisclosed user name, is starting up something he calls "Books for Palestine." He wants articles on books that promote the Hamas cause.

Elsewhere there is talk of linking up with efforts on non-English speaking Wikipedia projects and the Internet Movie Database, which takes contributions from the public. But the English-language Wikipedia is their main effort.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

Wikipedia's 'Arbitrators' May Dive Into the Wikipedia Flood (Updated through 9/1)

Please see the bottom of this entry for updates,

Are Wikipedia's legions of anti-Israel editors in danger? 

That question is raised by an "arbitration" case that is currently being ginned up in one of the myriad internal Wikipedia discussion pages. This is its current location. It originated here, in yet another forum. 

I'll quickly cut to the chase and answer the question I just posed: Don't bet on it. It's possible, but more likely either nothing meaningful will happen, or the outcome will be a net positive for the "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors, who are accustomed to gaming the system for their own ends. There's no reason to believe that pattern will end.

What happened was that an anti-Israel editor had sought sanctions against an editor who dared to stem the tide of anti-Israel propaganda, and the usual crew of pro-Hamas editors, led by the anti-Israel enforcer "Nableezy," swarmed in. Usually this would mean sanctions against the editor who antagonized the Wikipedia Flood. After all, the pro-Hamas tools and "POV-pushing" professional propagandists have the numbers to get their way.

But the discussion did not turn out as these things usually do. The pro-Hamas editors overplayed their hand, became abusive and tendentious, and what is known as a "boomerang" occurred. Rather than take sanctions against the pro-Hamas editors, however, the administrators involved in the discussion behaved in cowardly fashion. They referred the matter to what is known on Wikipedia as the "Arbitration Committee." "Arbcom" deals with protracted disputes and long-term editor behavior issues. The discussion now underway is seeking to determine if there will be a full-blown case.

Initially the discussion was surprisingly inhospitable to the pro-Hamas crew, who have not said much on the page as of now (Aug. 20). Some of the editors weighing in have raised points this blog has covered in the past: how pro-Hamas editors use their numbers to get their way, bludgeoning and harassing opposing editors and abusing Wikipedia's processes.

For instance, an editor of long experience named "Number 57," who is rarely seen in the so-called "Israel/Palestine" topic area, said as follows:

I edit around the edge of this topic area, focussing on Israeli politics and civil society, and have had the misfortune over the years to have ended up in disputes with editors pushing both anti-Israel and pro-Israel POV on articles where our paths corss. I very much welcome the suggestion that long-term tag-teaming, POV pushing and the ineffectiveness of current tools to stop this should be looked at. From my nearly 20 years' experience, the main issue has always been that there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Wikipedia to push their POV – anyone can look at their contribution histories and see that their contributions are primarily adding things that make their side look good/the other look bad and deleting information to the contrary; in discussions such as RMs, RfCs or AfDs, their stances are easily predicted based on their editing history. A further issue is that for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions (and in my view the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage).

"Number 57" is an "administrator," a member of the Wikipedia power structure, which gives his comments added weight.

Although this statement is afflicted by "bothsidesism," it still makes two crucial points, which I've emphasized in boldface, that this blog and other critics of Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias have made in the past. The 30/500 restriction, which was instituted at the behest of the rape-denying anti-Israel editor "Huldra," has been especially effective at cementing control of Wikipedia's Israel articles by the pro-Hamas bunch. Editors must have 30 days tenure and have made 500 edits to contribute in the "I/P" area. Wikipedia is supposedly the "encyclopedia anyone can edit," but that principle does not apply to articles controlled by the Wikipedia Flood. When it comes to articles that interest them, Wikipedia is the article they edit and everyone else must submit to their authority.

The pro-Hamas editors are clearly terrified by this case, judging from unhinged rants on the Nableezy user-talk page. The fanatical pro-Hamas editor Nishidani used the occasion to push anti-Zionist polemics. Clearly they are concerned. Could their control of Wikipedia be curbed? Could they be banned from "I/P" or kicked off Wikipedia entirely?

Things are so bad, Nableezy has such power as "boss" of the Wikipedia Flood, that an Israeli editor actually went to him to ask for permission to make an edit! Nableezy graciously granted permission. I understand this is due to an insane "mentorship" arrangement in which the Israeli editor, as a condition for not being topic-banned, must humiliatingly grovel before Wikipedia's number-one Hamas advocate and defer to his wisdom and experience. That is how bad things have become. "Ownership" of articles is prohibited by Wikipedia rules, but the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood.

Positive steps could be taken by Arbcom, but it's very unlikely. Nableezy, Nishidani and the other pro-Hamas editors are experienced operators with a legion of fans and allies. They are the very epitome of what have come to be known on Wikipedia as "unblockables." An essay on the subject  describes the attributes of the "unblockables," one of which is that they have a "fan club" of supporters who have each other's back. That is known in wiki-parlance as "tag-teaming."

Nableezy's "user box"

Even at this early stage, you can already see two of the tactics the pro-Hamas editors are going to bring to bear: gaslighting and word salads. 

Nableezy deployed both rhetorical techniques in a comment on the Arbcom page in which he contended, presumably with a straight face, that "there is this misconception that there are 'pro-Israel' editors vs 'pro-Palestinian' editors, and that is both not true and has never been true." 

Let's reflect on the momentous hypocrisy and dishonesty at work here. This is an editor who has a "user box" on his personal Wikipedia page proclaiming that he "supports the right of all individual groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties." which is a wordy way of saying "terrorism by Hamas and Hezbollah." It is the only user box on his page, and it is in a central position in the middle.

Most Wikipedia editors have user boxes describing their location, their interests, their time on Wikipedia and other innocuous things. Nableezy's proclaims his advocacy of suicide bombings, rape, abductions and murder by the terrorists whose cause he advances in Wikipedia. But no, he's not a partisan! He's not taking sides when he fights to slant articles against Israel and force out editors who conflict with him. Nableezy and his pals are "defenders of the Wiki" while the editors trying to stop them are violating policies A, B, C, X, Y and Z. 

Editors are not pro- or anti-Israel, they are pro- or anti-Wikipedia. That is the stance the pro-Hamas editors will be taking. It has worked in the past and there's no reason to doubt that it will again.