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.

UPDATE 8/21/24: This is how the Arbcom page appears at this hour. The gaslighting, blame-shifting and filibustering are well underway. See the comments from Sean Hoyland, a distraught Nishidani, Black Kite, Rosguill and, lastly, the infamous rape-denier Huldra. 

Their view can be summed up as "There is no numerically immense onslaught of abusive pro-Hamas editors. Here, look at this chart! Look at all the articles. Look at this. Look at that. Sure there should be people tossed out on their rear, but not our friends. Our people own the Wikipedia articles on Israel."

Their aim is to make everything complicated and murky, to give Arbcom an excuse to do nothing. That's not heavy lifting, because the volunteer "arbitrators" have better things to do than to do what they were elected to do. Doing nothing is their default position. It is easy and it is the odds-on favorite in this situation. Doing nothing will, of course, embolden the Wikipedia Flood and make it worse.

.UPDATE 8/22/24. The page looks like this right now. Not much has happened since yesterday except that we got a fuller taste of  Huldra. Her latest comment defends the 30/500 rule, which has reinforced the "ownership" of articles by Huldra and the Wikipedia Flood. 

She contends that the policy was enacted due to "the more unhinged of Israels' [sic] supporters. It was their incessant rape- and murder- threats which brought about this policy." In support of that statement, she links to pages indicating that some years ago, some crazy Israelis (or, more likely, people posing as Israelis to make Israelis look terrible) posted violent threats on Wikipedia pages.

It is of course nonsense to suggest that the 30/500 rule has the slightest impact on the ability of crazy people, or people pretending to be crazy people, coming on Wikipedia and behaving crazily. They can do so today. Neither of the hyperlinks posted by Huldra in support of this contention substantiate her statement. Nor could they. 

The 30/500 policy prohibits bona fide editing and has no impact whatever on vandalism. The Wikipedia Flood does not care about vandalism. Vandalism is easily fixed. Vandalism does not advance whatever cause vandals are ostensibly pursuing. Indeed, it has the opposite effect, which is why much vandalism of the kind she complains about is "false flag" vandalism.

Only a technique called "semi-protection" (prohibiting people not logged in from editing) can stop crazy people from coming onto user pages and threatening editors. Huldra's Wikipedia user pages are not semi-protected. 

The irony of the foregoing is that Huldra has denied that rapes took place on Oct. 7th, shrugging off massive evidence to push her pro-Hamas point of view. She has disgustingly suggested the young hostage Na'ama Levy was menstruating in the famous photo of her with blood on her pants.  

Huldra and the other editors of the Flood will be using similar techniques as they seek to stave off Arbcom and game the system to their advantage as they have in the past. They will play the victim, distort the record, make ridiculous demands for "data," deflect, lie, and behave like the polished propagandists and hypocrites that they are.

UPDATE 8/23/24. Huldra is apparently a reader of this blog. (Hi Huldra!)  She posted this right after I wrote the 8/22 update. Always dissembling, always playing the victim, she calls this blog "harassment" based on something I haven't done or tried to do ("outed" or doxed her). As far as I know, no one has doxed her.

She also lies about the number of websites scrutinizing pro-Hamas activity on Wikipedia ("there have been at least half a dozen attacking those editor [sic] not deemed pro-Israeli enough"). As far as I know, there was a grand total of one a few years ago, linked in my first post, called "The Israel Group." It was created in 2019 and went dark in 2021. I understand that its creator is deceased. There is one such blog today, this blog. If there are or were any others, I'd like to know what they are or were. Please comment here or email me, and I will be happy to link to them. 

Expect more dissembling and victim-playing by Huldra and other Wikipedia Flood editors as they flood Arbcom.

UPATE 8/25/24 The page looks like this at the current time.

Not much has happened since the last update. The Wikipedia Flood editors are sporadically posting, deploying their usual tactics: tag-teaming, gaslighting, attacking the admins who asked for the referral to arbcom, changing the subject, playing the victim, filibustering and word salads, and offering up meaningless "data" in support of their gaslighting. 

The latter is a specialty of the veteran anti-Israel user Sean.Hoyland, who has presented charts and tables that he offers as evidence that our lying eyes deceive us. Contrary to claims made by multiple, long-established editors (including prominent administrators), no one is deterred from participating by the thuggish behavior of anti-Israel editors! 

Actually his "data" shows only that there was an upsurge of interest in the subject matter after the Oct. 7 attacks. There is no way you can prove or disprove with "data" whether a topic area of extraordinary interest, on the world's most widely followed website, has been turned into an online minefield in which pro-Hamas editors "own" articles. 

For that you need first-hand accounts, which were provided.

The phony data tactic is as clever as it is dishonest. Arbitrators like charts and tables and numbers, whether or not they prove anything, and they can lazily seize on this "data" to refuse to hear the case, giving the Wikipedia Flood an immediate victory. Or it can be subsequently used, if they take the case, as "proof" that there is no problem that requires them to curb the Flood.

It's already obvious that the arbitrators don't want to be bothered by the whole thing. They've had little to say and are probably hoping the whole thing will go away.  According to a commenter on an anti-Wikipedia message board, of the 13 arbitrators, nine are listed as active. Of those, only four, plus one listed as inactive, have commented on the case so far.

UPDATE 8/26/24 The page looks like this, and it is clear now that we have a devoted if not careful reader. Administrator "Doug Weller" engages in pearl-clutching about this blog on the arbcom page and the user talk page of the administrator Joe Roe. Roe was the one who discarded Wikipedia rules in determining that "Gaza genocide" was an appropriate title for an article.

First Doug Weller pointed to a Jewish Journal article on the subject, and then gave a plug to this blog! Thank you Doug Weller! Thank you for driving traffic to this blog! One correction: I did not "attack" Number 57. I cited his comments approvingly. If my comment on semi-protection is inaccurate or imprecise, please send me an email or leave a comment here.  

Pro-Hamas editors Nishidani and Sean.Hoyland weighed in, displaying the casual indifference of people who are upset. The Wikipedia Flood editors and their enablers and tools are unused to public scrutiny.

Since we are getting eyeballs thanks to Doug Weller, a reminder that tips, suggestions and criticisms are welcome by email or comment. Comments can be anonymous. The email address is WikipediaCritic at proton.me.

UPDATE 8/27/24. The page looks like this. Still little from the "arbitrators," probably due to summer vacations, but indications show that there will be a "full case" in which arbcom's determination to fix the "I/P" area will be tested. Most likely, there will be an opportunity for the Wikipedia Flood pro-Hamas editors, their tools and enablers, to reinforce their control over the articles they want to control and to take revenge on their adversaries.

Their adversaries include User:BilledMammal. Keep your eye on them. He or she is one of the most active of the editors seeking to restrain the Wikipedia Flood's POV-pushing and propaganda. They are among the most active of the non-pro-Hamas editors in the arbitration case. Expect the Wikipedia Flood to target them in an effort to get them topic-banned or worse. 

Individual editors can make a great deal of difference in the "I/P" area, given the dominance of pro-Hamas editors, their friends, tools and enablers. That is why they are slimed with nastiness and sarcasm ("badgered" in Wiki-parlance) as soon as they show up on article talk pages. The pro-Hamas enforcer Nableezy loves to haul them up on charges to get them tossed out of the articles. 

Let's see what happens to BilledMammal. Expect tag-teaming, exaggerations and misrepresentations. Arbcom likes to "split the baby," so if action is taken against the Wikipedia Flood pro-Hamas editors, BilledMammal is likely to be sanctioned too.

Steve Sotloff about to be beheaded

UPDATE #2 8/27/24: An interesting sidelight just came to my attention, thanks to an email. (Keep those emails coming!) One of the Wikipedia pro-Hamas editors who is participating in the arbcom case is User:DanMurphy, a former Christian Science Monitor reporter. He takes himself very seriously and posts a great many sneering missives favoring the pro-Hamas point of view. He does so with literary pretensions, highlighting that he is royalty among peons.

It is true that Murphy is something of a celebrity, but in the worst possible way. When he was employed by the Monitor in 2014, he made a spectacle of himself when American journalist Steve Sotloff was beheaded by ISIS. On the day it happened, Murphy tweeted:  

"Very sorry that the head-choppers murdered another American. That is not something for the US to wind itself into a tizzy over." 

Dead Jews bring out the worst in Murphy it seems. This disgusting, almost pathologically callous tweet was of course harshly criticized. You can see some of the criticism as replies to the original tweet, as Murphy immediately "protected" his tweets to shield them from scrutiny. He does not have that privilege on Wikipedia.

Elsewhere in Wikipedia-land today, the rape-denier Huldra claimed that it was "false" that I said in my Aug. 23 update that this blog is only the second blog (to my knowledge) focusing on anti-Israel editors. She goes on to say "I believe isrellycool.com was the first with a post from a "guest poster". He -eventally- [sic] took it down. . ." 

Note that she is talking about a single blog entry, not an entire blog devoted to exposing Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias. Her statement to arbcom that "there have been at least half a dozen" websites like this one is rubbish. This kind of dissembling is typical of Wikipedia Flood editors. They just lie continually, often about things that are in the public record and easy to check.

Lastly, look at the comment that was posted today at the foot of this item concerning the "Wikipediocracy" criticism message board. It's a good analysis on how that site is obsessed with petty inside baseball and has become useless for general readers. The author of the comment is encouraged to contact me if they wish to expand that into a guest blog.

UPDATE 8/29/24. The case page currently looks like this.

In a post today, an arbitrator with the user name "ToBeFree" came up with an approach that would give arbcom the ability to duck the entire issue. He contends that for strictly bureaucratic reasons, Arbcom should not take the case because not all the "Ts" have been crossed. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy. That is in fact enshrined in policy. His reasoning is weak. But if arbcom wants to simply do nothing, it now has a rationale. The pro-Hamas editors are of course delighted. 

UPDATE 8/31/24. The case page looks like this. 

While the "arbitrators" largely ignore the whole thing, hoping it will go away, the Wikipedia Flood editors have started up a side discussion on the Administrators Noticeboard, targeting an administrator they view as an enemy. If they succeed, the administrator will no longer be allowed to take disciplinary measures against them.  

The AN discussion can be found here and currently looks like this. Their target is the admin "Red-tailed hawk." He was one of the admins who are seeking to have Arbcom consider action against the pro-Hamas bunch. They don't like him, and they want him to go away. On a thin pretext, they claim that he is already "involved" in the subject matter and thus is too prejudiced to take action against them. That's a ridiculous distortion of the rules, but the pro-Hamas editors usually get their way because they have the sheer numbers. 

Even if they don't succeed, they win anyway. Their badgering and intimidation tactics complicate matters, generating reams of verbiage, and may persuade arbcom that the case is too much of a morass for them to deal with. 

The AN discussion will also tend to intimidate other admins that might consider taking action against the pro-Hamas crew, and for the same reason. Who needs the headache? Who wants to be dragged to the Administrators Noticeboard at the drop of a hat? 

The Flood editors stick together and help each other, they are organized and directed outside of Wikipedia, and they are determined to win. Wikipedia admins and arbitrators are just part-time, unpaid hobbyists.  They have jobs and families that are bigger priorities for them than Wikipedia. They don't need headaches, and the Wikipedia Flood gives headaches to any administrator who crosses them. It's how they control the articles they want to control.

A reader commented as follows, which is fine. Good to know that people are reading and enjoy the blog. But they deleted it before I had a chance to approve it. Why do that?  Obviously this is one of the pro-Hamas operatives I'm writing about, and people should be aware that antisemites are controlling content on Wikipedia. Don't be shy. Come back and post! Just keep in mind that Blogger notifies me by email when a comment comes in, so if you delete a comment I still have a copy of it. Also remember that "LMFAO" means you are upset, not that you are laughing.

UPDATE 9/1/24. The page looks like this. An arb named "H.J. Mitchell" just posted a long-winded missive saying hat there should be no arbcom case, thereby allowing the volunteer arbs to do nothing, as they hope. He then made a suggestion that would reinforce Wikipedia's position as a Hamas organ.

. . . . reading some of the comments above about how knowledgeable many Wikipedians are on their chosen subject) was the analysis of sources; I didn't think it was ArbCom's place to be doing that analysis itself, but but it could be valuable to have an agreed baseline of what the academic literature says, which (aside from being useful in itself) would then support (or refute) allegations of source misrepresentation. One final thing we could do is avoid the use of news media and primary reporting in articles on current events (this could potentially be done by consensus, or ArbCom writ, or part of the suite of sanctions administrators have available and applied article by article).

Academia and academic literature are of course grotesquely anti-Zionist, and Wikipedia's pro-Hamas editors frequently make use of organs like the Journal of Palestine Studies which tend to read as if they were written by Yahya Sinwar. Disallowing "use of primary new media and primary reporting" makes no sense if you're writing about on an ongoing conflict, but the other part of his proposal could definitely fly. There will be a lot of support for that among the Wikipedia Flood. I see more editors piling on and talking up that idea. 

This arbcom case started out targeting the Wikipedia Flood, but it looks as if it is tilting their way, just as I predicted at the outset.

This blog will be further updated as warranted.

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

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