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.

Wikipedia 'Talk' Pages Are Rigged Against Israel

The Jewish Journal has come out with an excellent article describing in copious detail how Wikipedia editors threw the "rule book" out the window, disregarding all of their so-called "policies," in naming an article on allegations of "genocide" by Israel.  It describes how anti-Israel editors make a mockery of fairness and common sense, applying a blatant double standard in articles relating to Israel.

It describes the institutional antisemitism that besets Wikipedia. While not stated explicitly, the Jewish Journal article proves an essential point: 

Talk pages on Wikipedia that relate to Israel, all the forums and so forth that make determinations, are strictly pro forma. They are ritualistic. They serve no purpose other than to ratify the point of view of mobs of anti-Israel editors. They are not forums for open discussion and debate, but are bureaucratic procedures that are used to ratify predetermined outcomes.

Strength of argument, reason, and so on, are supposed to determine outcome but they do not. The process is rigged. The outcome is determined by the numbers of anti-Israel editors who can be brought to bear in discussions, not by the strength of arguments. 

They "flood" discussions, coordinating their efforts through off-Wikipedia communications. Some are full-time anti-Israel propaganda operatives. One of them, the infamous anti-Israel enforcer Nableezy, advocates for terrorism on his "user page" and is believed to be an employee of the pro-Hamas Electronic Intifada online organ.

Pro-Israel editors who are suckered into "talk page" discussions find themselves involved in endless, circular, repetitious bad-faith arguments by pro-Hamas operatives who are there to push their "POV" and are not subject to persuasion. They have the numbers to win, they know it, and they relish baiting "the enemy." 

One of the lies you see on Wikipedia is that discussions are not "votes." That is bullshit. It is a numbers game. Anti-Israel editors swarm discussions, to harangue and bully and harass and berate. They win on numbers. In the rare instances when they don't win on numbers, they start all over again a short time later, even though that's against the rules. But the rules are not enforced against them on Wikipedia. Or they swarm "appeals" processes and flood the talk pages of administrators who act against their wishes. They just push and push until they get their way.

Everything I've described above is the reason the ADL was shafted in the "reliable sources" discussion boards. The ADL has responded by ignoring Wikipedia's processes and gone straight to the ruling Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation has told the ADL to drop dead. In response, the ADL needs to inflict pain. It needs to act against the WMF's nonprofit status and its funding. It needs to make Wikipedia's reputation toxic, because it is toxic. 

As I mentioned in a previous blog, pro-Israel editors need to start a flood of their own. But meanwhile the WMF needs to feel pain. If they feel enough pain, they will act to protect their jobs and their bloated salaries.

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

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