'MaskedSinger' is threatened with serious consequences if he continues to do----what? |
The "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors could not control articles without the active cooperation of the site's volunteer "administrators," who hold great power over lesser editors. Many of them are anti-Zionist themselves, and use their "tools" with greater impact than dozens of lesser editors.
Administrators can deny you access to the site entirely. They can ban you from topic areas, including everything related to Israel. They are subject to limited oversight and are only rarely removed, no matter how biased or incompetent they may be.
A good example just arose on Sept. 22, when the editor "MaskedSinger" was blocked for two months by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller." As far as I know (please comment or email me if I missed something), no one actually complained about this editor. "Doug Weller" took it upon himself to do this. It is almost unheard-of for anti-Zionist editors to be throttled out of the blue in this manner, and usually they withstand sustained complaints with nothing happening to them.
This user's block was so gratuitous, so outwardly unfair, that it should have been immediately reversed but it was not. This entire process, including the selective and harsh punishment, serves as a warning (intentionally, I believe) to editors coming to the Zionism and other articles to counter anti-Zionist editors: toe the anti-Zionist line or be blocked.
"MaskedSinger" has been active in the Zionism article, which has been rewritten as an anti-Zionist polemic. As I explained in a previous blog item, this user has pointed out the historical roots of Zionism dating back to antiquity. He has done so on the "talk" or discussion page of the article. A review of the past 1000 edits of the article shows that he has not edited this article for at least the past four years! (My apologies for stating in a previous version of this post that he edited the article. He did not. He just talked about it.)
Did his merely talking about that article prompt this block? What was wrong with what he said on the discussion page? Or was "Doug Weller" just angry about all the negative outside attention this article has received and taking it out on "MaskedSinger"?
It's plain that his motive was the latter. I say that because "Doug Weller" was laughingly vague, and did not even attempt to be fair or even say with any specificity why he was blocking him. "And if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block," "Doug Weller" warned.
If what continues after he is blocked? He didn't say. In fact, no grounds were stated, but the block record says, without elaboration, "lack of good faith, personal attacks, persistent disruption." That of course can be said about every single anti-Israel editor. Note that the block record refers to the discussion page ("Talk:Zionism") as well as the article proper, when as I mentioned he has not edited the article.
As typically happens in such situations, other admis backed up "Doug Weller" without a second thought. His lack of providing an explanation was fine with them. "Doug will probably explain further when he's at leisure to," said the veteran administrator "Bishonen."
An appeal of the block was denied by another administrator, "PhilKnight," and the reason was illuminating: "Could you say if unblocked what you would do? Would you continue to argue the bible can be used as a historical source? I think you need a break from that."
As far as I can tell, MaskedSinger never made a single edit to the Zionism page. This two-month block appears to have been given for his discussion on the Zionism talk page, where he made 22 edits over five days. Most of these were during a spirited discussion on September 18, after which it settled down. If this is what they're calling disruption these days, they're going to lose a lot of editors. Doug Weller clearly abused his power, and he should lose the admin tools.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Excellent point.
DeleteI've donated to Wikipedia in the past and have even considered being a volunteer, at least cleaning up entries so they're easier to read. But now neither of those things are going to happen. No more donations, no chance I'll volunteer, and I'm going to carefully consider other sources than Wikipedia for information. For instance, I'm sure they're fine for looking up the density of osmium or when Kaiser Wilhelm was born, but anything to do with the Middle East, no way.
ReplyDeleteWikimedia must lose its non-profit charity status, its section 230 protections, and its data partnership with Google as a neutral source. It is no longer a neutral organization or website.
ReplyDeleteI've been following your posts after I read Aaron Bandler's article. Thank you for covering this. At this point I think "worse is better." The longer this continues, the more transparently ideological and extremist Wikipedia will become, until it completely discredits itself with the wider public.
ReplyDelete