Don't You Dare Call Slaughter of Jews 'Massacres' or 'Pogroms' on Wikipedia

 

The Aleppo pogrom of 1947 is sanitized by pro-Hamas editor 'Smallangryplanet'

This blog calls Wikipedia's pro-Hamas editors the "Wikipedia flood," after the Hamas killers who crossed into Israel on Oct. 7 to commit genocide. But in practice it isn't a flood as much as it is constant background noise, practiced by hundreds of committed and probably paid operatives, who manipulate Wikipedia processes through sheer numbers, cynical abuse of the rules and determination.

As I've documented in this blog, every article dealing even remotely with Israel and "Palestine" is twisted into pro-Hamas propaganda, and articles on Jewish suffering in the Middle East are censored to remove language, however justified, that tends to make the Arab and Muslim world look bad.

That brings us to the article on the pogrom that massacred Jews in Aleppo, Syria, in 1947, or as Wikipedia tepidly puts it the "1947 anti-Jewish riots in Aleppo." 

The Aleppo pogrom was just that. "Pogrom" is defined as "an organized massacre of helpless people,

specifically such a massacre of Jews." It's a simple concept, and the Aleppo pogrom clearly fits the definition. Seventy-five Jews were murdered and hundreds were injured. The Syrian Jewish community fled en masse in its aftermath and it was not unique. Similar massacres spread throughout the Arab world on the eve of the creation of the State of Israel.

The pogrom is described as just that by numerous scholars, among them the respected Israeli scholar Benny Morris in his book "1948." Morris is noted for his independent and even iconoclastic view of the conflict.

But for the Wikipedia Flood, that will not do. Whenever massacres of Jews in the Arab world are described, antisemitic editors descend on the articles to police the language. Words like "massacre" and "pogrom" are reserved only for Arabs in the Middle East.

So it was with the Aleppo pogrom. Even though the article on the pogrom has called it that for a long time, making it the "stable" version of the article, a member of the thought police made sure that it no longer did. The anti-Israel editor "Smallangryplanet" swooped down in two edits recently to remove every single reference to "pogrom," turning the slaughter into "riots." 

In so doing, "Smallangryplanet" removed categories and lists putting the Aleppo pogrom in the same league as other pogroms and massacres.  

Inclusion in a list of "Anti-Jewish pogroms during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War"? Now way. Not only is the Aleppo pogrom not included on the list, but the list itself is no longer at the bottom of the article. 

The same for a list of "Massacres or pogroms against Jews." Aleppo is not there either because this was, after all not a massacre or a pogrom. A mere 75 Jews dead. Just a rounding error. And besides, they're Jews. When Palestinians are killed by accident by Israeli forces, that is always, always termed a "massacre" on Wikipedia.

Two listings of massacres and pogroms—gone.

The same fate was meted out to inclusion of the Aleppo pogrom in the categories "Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East" and "Massacres in 1947."

'Massacre' and 'pogrom' categories? No way.

So wait a moment, you ask. Given his blatant prejudice, wasn't this "POV-pusher" (as such editors are called on Wikipedia) swept up in the supposed dragnet of anti-Israel editors by the so-called "Arbitration Committee late in 2024? That arbitration "case" received ample publicity despite its paucity of results, and was widely cited (though not by this blog) as a sign of improvement at Wikipedia.

Nope. The editor in question was not named as a party and was not sanctioned.  In fact, Smallangryplanet actually gave evidence to the feckless, inept "arbitrators." He targeted two editors viewed as enemies by the Flood. 

His lawfare worked. Both editors were indefinitely banned from articles on "Israel and Palestine," broadly construed, by the arbitrators.

As for Smallangryplanet, he's working the system just fine. 

A few months later, there was evidence that he was engaged in "sockpuppeting" (creating phony accounts) as well as blatant "POV-pushing." Yet he escaped action by the Arbitration Committee, which in April defeated a motion to indefinitely topic ban him. Arguing in favor of topic-banning, one arb pointed out that he consistently agitated in favor of naming killings of Palestinians as "massacres."

Despite overwhelming evidence of one-sided (not to mention hypocritical) editing, the Arbitration Committee let "Smallangryplanet" off the hook, as it usually does with pro-Hamas editors.

That's not the end of the road for "Smallangryplanet" or the article. His edits may be changed, and he may be disciplined. But what of it? There are plenty of other Hamas operatives to take his place.

Wikipedia Freezes 'Zionism' Article as Anti-Zionist Polemic

Wikipedia rebuffs a request to fix the 'Zionism' article

In a previous blog item I described how last September, a Wikipedia administrator permanently banned efforts to alter a blatantly false anti-Zionist passage in the Zionism article.

The passage reads: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." As pointed out in detail by Aaron Bandler in the Jewish Journal, the passage is blatantly false: 

In my blog item I wrote: "That sentence, which accuses Israel's founders of ethnic cleansing in Wikipedia's voice, unattributed, is there to stay. And if you don't like it you can pound sand or, even less productively, you can argue it out on the 'talk' page of the article, which is tightly controlled by anti-Zionist editors."

As always seems to happen on Wikipedia, the situation has actually worsened. Now the entire Zionism article is shielded from meaningful changes in the same peremptory, arbitrary manner. A wholesale "rollback" of the article to a more neutral version is not allowed.  

Since returning the entire article to its pre-propaganda state would entail changing that passage, the entire article is now set in stone as far as wholesale changes are concerned.  That false passage is holy on Wikipedia. It is like the Gospels. Immutable.  

Yesterday, an "IP" editor made a simple request: that the article be rolled back to its state prior to the post-Oct. 7 Hamas propaganda binge, what I call the "Wikipedia Flood." They suggested this version as more consistent with Wikipedia's neutrality principals.

The IP editor argued:

Recent edits may have significantly altered the tone and neutrality of the article, including removal or reframing of historically and factually supported content. I believe that version offered a more balanced representation, particularly in describing the historical background of Zionism, its relation to Jewish self-determination, and the context of antisemitism — which now appear to be diminished or excluded.

An administrator, "TarnishedPath," summarily denied the request, saying:

There is a moratorium on [a]ll discussion about editing, removing, or replacing "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." 

They cited this discussion from Februuary, which engraved in stone that false anti-Zionist passage. It's a twelve-month moratorium, which means it expires next February if it isn't extended. Which, of course, it will. The Flood won't vanish by then.

What this episode demonstrates, yet again, is that Wikipedia's anonymous "administrators" and the "arbitrators" above them have broad discretion to do pretty much whatever they want, without oversight or meaningful supervision, even when they violate the site's core principles. 

One of those principles, cited during the brief discussion yesterday, is "WP:CCC," "Consensus can change." Yes, consensus can and does change—sometimes. But when a handful of editors flood an article to pepper it with anti-Israel rubbish, the phony "consensus" they create is permanent.

That's what critics of Wikipedia need to grasp. The "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel editors and their allies and enablers twist and disregard site policies and "pillars" at will. Concepts like "oversight" and "accountability" are foreign to Wikipedia, which is why it is incapable of internal reform. 

Wikipedia Cultists Trash Ed Martin Article

Ed Martin's Wikipedia article before and after he antagonized the Wikipedia Cult

I have a lot of trouble getting people to grasp that Wikipedia is a cult. That is essential to understanding Wikipedia—why it is rejects external criticism and internal reform, and why it is essential to revoke its parent foundation's tax exemption. 

This is not a new insight. It has been made for literally decades, and from all points on the political spectrum. In 2005, a writer for the far-left British organ The Guardian pointed to "the quasi-religious fervour surrounding the 'rightness' of Wikipedia," and said the following.

What I realised. . . is that Wikipedia, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. Which, by my (computer's) dictionary definition, means "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing; a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society, 'a cult film'."

One of the characteristics of cults is revenge against its enemies. 

In Scientology, it is known as "fair game." Individuals so targeted may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." 

Wikipedia can't deprive its enemies of property but it can savage their reputation, and do so easily. That brings us to the illustration at the top of this article. 

On the left is how the article on Edward R. Martin Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, appeared on April 24, just before he sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation posing pointed questions and raising the possibility that the Foundation's tax exemption may be yanked. My post on the letter, suggesting how the Foundation would respond if it was honest, is here.

On the right is how the article appears today.  In a short period of time, Martin has gone from obscure politician to Enemy of the Wikipedia Cult. 

At the very top of the article he is now smeared, labeled a fascistic, "far-right" politician, with "a history of making incendiary claims about opponents and causing ethical and legal controversies."  

The trashing of Martin's article is consistent with the generally hysterical reaction to Martin's letter in Wikipedia forums, such as this one. 

Today Jewish Insider reported that "23 bipartisan members of Congress told the Wikimedia Foundation: ‘It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure Wikipedia remains free of bias, antisemitism and pro-terrorist content.’" While these congresspeople have the safety of being in a group, don't be surprised if they are singled out for Wikipedia smear jobs.

But that's just collateral damage. The main takeaway here is not that Wikipedia editors are defensive, thin-skinned boobs, which many of them are, but that Wikipedia, as a cult, is not capable of fixing itself in any meaningful way. 

I made that point in a post a few weeks ago in which I said that the ADL, which had just issued a report on Wikipedia, "naively disregards Wikipedia's rigid, cultlike culture."

I went on to say:

I like that it [the ADL] recommends that search results downgrade Wikipedia. Its recommendations on LLMs ("large language models" used in artificial intelligence) are excellent. I think its recommendations for the government are also great. I hope the ADL makes a major effort to implement all of these suggestions.

I also generally agree with its recommendations for Wikipedia. But there's a problem.

The problem is that they fly in the face of the reality of Wikipedia, which is that it is a cult, hidebound and rigid, self-governed by a great mass of anonymous people, that it rewards groupthink and mediocrity, is intrinsically and structurally left-leaning and antisemitic, and anxious to retain all these repulsive qualities. 

Sure, I want Wikipedia to make major structural changes and I also want pigs to fly.

Wikipedia will never change internally. Cults don't. Wikipedia won't. It must not be subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.

We Answer the U.S. Attorney's Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

U.S. Attorney Edward Martin's letter to the WMF

UPDATE April 28: The Foundation speaks! See the bottom of this post.

On April 23 this blog examined the latest of a slew of antisemitic blood libels in Wikipedia, this one the article titled "Rafah paramedic massacre," which Wikipedia (in its own voice) termed part of the "Gaza genocide." 

In keeping with our view that Wikipedia is hopeless and immune to internal reform, we ended as follows:

Since Wikipedia clearly does not serve the public interest, one area that should be explored is removal of the Wikimedia Foundation's tax-exempt status.

The Trump Administration is expected to act against Harvard's tax exemption. Whether that's valid or not is for others to decide. But look at this article, this rubbish, this Hamas propaganda and ask yourself: Why does the U.S. taxpayer support a website that produce this drivel in not one but thousands of articles? 

As we all know, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Edward R. Martin, began the process of doing just that a day later, sending a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding answers to a bunch of questions, with a clear threat to remove the WMF's tax-exempt status.

The WMF has until May 15 to answer Mr. Martin but no problem. We will save everyone the trouble by answering this letter on the WMF's behalf. In our answers we will be stating what the WMF would say if it would honestly answer the questions, free of doubletalk and self-serving gobbledygook.

As you can plainly see from what follows, the Foundation has a problem on its hands. 

1. What mechanisms does the Wikimedia Foundation have in place to fulfill its legal and ethical responsibilities to safeguard the public from the dissemination of propaganda, particularly in light of its designation as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and in light of the Foundation’s longstanding hands-off policy regarding Trust & Safety (including content moderation and editor misconduct)?

Answer: There are no mechanisms. The WMF, as you point out, has a "hands-off policy" regarding everything that appears on Wikipedia. Our position is "if you don't like the way we run things, go ahead and pound sand."

2. Regarding Trust & Safety, what does the Foundation provide in terms of employees and contractors, budget, day to day oversight, and enforcement mechanisms, for the purposes of content moderation and actioning of editor misconduct? Here, editor misconduct includes but is not limited to content manipulation, bullying, and off-platform canvassing (for edits or committee elections).

Answer: We have no role in content moderation and editor misconduct. That is up to the anonymous editors of the website we finance. Since we have no role, we have no enforcement mechanisms. We just stand by passively while we raise money and pay ourselves immense salaries. 

Have you looked at our IRS Form 990, Mr. Martin? Our CEO, Maryana Iskander, pays herself $512,179 plus $22,289 in other compensation. Our General Counsel, who will blow you off in our official response, consists of two people. One is Amanda Keton. Her pay is $376,362 and $35,320 respectively. She served through Feb. 23. The other is Stephen Laporte. His pay is $230,141 and $19,371, respectively. That's a lot of legal firepower designed specifically to keep people like you from butting into our operations, and telling people suing us to get lost.

3. How does the Foundation ensure transparency and accountability regarding the extent to which its editorial practices and platform governance are influenced by ongoing relationships with donors, sponsors, funders, or other external stakeholders?

 Answer: I hate to be monotonous, Mr. Martin, but since we have a "hands off" policy concerning content we do absolutely nothing to ensure transparency and accountability yadda yadda. Next question!

4. What steps has the Foundation taken to exclude foreign influence operations from making targeted edits to categories of content in order to reshape or rewrite history? Who enforces these measures, and how? What foreign influence operations have been detected, and what did the Foundation do to reverse their influence and prevent it from continuing?

Answer: Nothing, nobody and nothing. Those are the answers to these three sub-questions. We don't know what foreign influence operations skew our content and we don't want to know. We may suspect, as we are highly paid and not stupid, but it's none of our business. Those anonymous editors we finance have things well in hand, or not well in hand.

If we ever say differently, don't believe us, since we have that hands-off policy we discussed earlier and if we were concerned, we wouldn't be hands-off would we?

5. What policy does the Foundation have in place to ensure that content submissions, editorial decisions, and article revisions reflect a broad spectrum of viewpoints, including those that may be in tension with the views of major financial or institutional backers?

Answer: Absolutely nothing, as explained above. Why are you treating us like an ordinary organization? We are specifically designed not to be accountable, Mr. Martin.

6. What is the Foundation’s official process for addressing credible allegations that editors or contributors have materially misled readers, engaged in bad-faith edits, or otherwise manipulated content in ways that undermine Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality? Similarly, what is the Foundation’s official process for auditing or evaluating the actions, activities, and voting patterns of editors, admins, and committees, including the Arbitration Committee, in order to ensure the Foundation’s policies and the policies of its projects are enforced? Detail all instances in which these processes have been utilized in the last six years.

Answer: Our official process for addressing credible allegations of bad-faith edits and manipulated content is simple. Glad you asked. We write letters denying responsibility. We are organized not to be responsible. We do not know and do not care what the "Arbitration Committee" and so forth do or don't do. We can't give them orders. They don't report to us. They report to the "community." 

Do you know what the "Wikipedia community" is? It does not exist. There is no "community." There are only bunches of anonymous editors who organize to influence content, and often congregate offsite to do so. 

Attached are copies of all the letters and statements we've made over the past six years telling people who bring complaints to us to drop dead, so you can see how our "processes" work.

7. Does the Foundation maintain a public, formally adopted policy explicitly prohibiting hateful content and conduct by editors? If so, what enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance and accountability, and which namespaces and content on the platform do these mechanisms apply to? Further, how does the Foundation ensure that sources used in writing content on Wikipedia and elsewhere do not violate its policies, including but not limited to those against discrimination?

Answer: Surely you must be joking. We have no such policies. If we do, if at some point we adopted some vaguely worded statement on the subject, it would mean nothing as we cannot enforce it. Since we have no policy on hateful content, we obviously can't ensure that people don't discriminate yadda yadda. 

Come on. Ask me a tough question!

8. Given growing public concerns regarding the large-scale manipulation of particular categories of content by ideologically motivated editors, what safeguards exist to detect and prevent undue influence by individuals or coordinated networks who use editorial or administrative authority to systematically distort content? Provide details regarding actions taken by the Foundation using these safeguards over the last six years. Additionally, detail any changes over time to these safeguards.

Answer: You call that a tough question? As I explained, we don't stick our nose into content. Those anonymous, axe-grinding "members of the community" are our "safeguard" against everything naughty that might take place. I had a straight face while I wrote those words, but it's true.

9. In view of public criticisms, including those expressed by Wikipedia Co-Founder Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, regarding the opacity of editorial processes and the anonymity of contributors, what justification does the Foundation offer for shielding editors from public scrutiny? How does it reconcile this policy with broader editorial standards, which typically require attribution, accountability, and subject-matter transparency as safeguards in the public interest What measures does the Foundation take to assess the integrity and competence of senior editors and administrators?

Answer: We don't care about public criticisms and we don't care what Sanger says. We don't like Sanger and the public can go f--- itself. Now I know you don't like hearing that but that's our attitude here at the WMF, and the same goes for that "community" of nice anonymous people who contribute to the "project," thereby enabling us to pay ourselves those great salaries I mentioned earlier. 

We have no justification for shielding editors from scrutiny. The subject never comes up, since "accountability" is a foreign concept and we don't abide by it. As for the "integrity and competence" of senior editors and administrators: we don't care about that any more than we do about the content appearing in Wikipedia. We just keep the website alive and pay ourselves nice salaries, as previously noted.

10. Given the anonymity protections presently afforded to all Wikipedia editors—even in cases where individuals have been banned for engaging in prohibited conduct—what internal safeguards or enforcement mechanisms exist to prevent such users from creating new accounts and resuming the same impermissible practices? In particular, how does the Foundation address concerns regarding the apparent lack of a robust and transparent process to detect, deter, and permanently exclude repeat offenders from the editorial ecosystem?

Answer: We have something called "Checkuser" that provides a very rough technical safeguard against banned editors creating new accounts. But since organized bands of Wikipedia editors, pushing a pro-Hamas, antisemitic agenda on Israel and Jews, have personnel available in unlimited supply, such "sockpuppeting" is unnecessary. I am sure that when we give you our official answer we will seize on this question and go on and on and on about how much resources we use to prevent socking. This was a softball of a question, really not a very good one, Mr. Martin.

11. What third-party entities, including but not limited to artificial intelligence, large language model companies, and search engines, has the Wikimedia Foundation contracted with to use, redistribute, or process Wikipedia content? Please produce all documents, memoranda of understanding, contracts, or related agreements reflecting such arrangements, including any amendments, appendices, or correspondence pertaining thereto.

Answer: Good question. I have no snotty response. The WMF is not going to like this question, assuming the premise behind your question is correct.

12. When editors or the Foundation delete content which was found to be harmful or illegal but has already been shared with third parties (including search engine and LLM companies), what steps does the Foundation follow in order to repair the downstream effects of that content on search results and data already used to train LLMs? What measures does the Foundation take to ensure that these companies, as well as the broader public, understand misinformation, bias, and other problems across its projects, including Wikipedia?

Answer: As mentioned before, the Foundation doesn't delete anything. When editors do, and that is exceedingly rare, they don't know or care what third parties have been doing to replicate the former content. 

Thanks for the questions, Mr. Martin! Look forward to giving you our formal response but don't bother with it. These are the correct answers.

UPDATE April 28: In a statement emailed to an anti-Trump publication called "The Verge," Wikimedia Foundation "associate general counsel" Jacob Rogers said as follows;

“Wikipedia’s content is governed by three core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research, which exist to ensure information is presented as accurately, fairly, and neutrally as possible. The entire process of content moderation is overseen by nearly 260,000 volunteers and is open and transparent for all to see, which is why we welcome opportunities to explain how Wikipedia works and will do so in the appropriate forum.”

So in other words, the Foundation is responding as predicted in this post. It can't be honest, so it recites the party line.

Hopefully Wikipedia's CEO will be summoned to Congress to testify under oath. Subpoena the bastards. Force them to tell the truth, and toss them in prison if and when they lie.

Wikipedia's Latest Blood Libel Underlines the Need for Action

 

Not a tragic accident but a 'massacre' and a 'genocide'

Whenever Israel commits a tragic blunder, such as the killing of 15 people in ambulances in Gaza, you can expect two things: the IDF will investigate and promptly release its findings, and Hamas will call it a "massacre" that is part of a plot to commit "genocide" against all Palestinians.

No make that three things. Wikipedia will adopt the Hamas narrative. 

Thus Wikipedia has an article titled "Rafah paramedic massacre," which it describes as "Part of the March 2025 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip during the Gaza war and the Gaza genocide." In the lead paragraph, the word "massacre" is footnoted to this article in the virulently anti-Israel British organ The Guardian. 

There is nothing especially atypical about this latest effort by Wikipedia to smear Israel using  incendiary language that is prohibited by the site's policy, which ostensibly is designed to promote "neutrality." As this blog has pointed out numerous times in the past, site policies such as "NPOV," the "neutral point of view" policy, are routinely disregarded as far as Israel is concerned. 

"Impartial tone"? Forget about it. 

"Contentious labels"? Perfectly OK. 

"Non-judgmental article titles"? You've got to be kidding.

This article, which is almost ridiculously slanted against Israel from its Hamas-fed title on down, is a vivid demonstration of how the recent "Palestine-Israel" arbitration case did not put a dent into the "Wikipedia flood" of anti-Israel editors and their campaign to use Wikipedia to vilify Israel. What it shows is that the "flood" is exceptionally large, and has an immense talent pool to draw on when a few of its members are sidelined.

The creator of this article was a Wikipedian who was totally uninvolved in the arbcom case, User:Skitash. He has been around since 2022 and has produced a large volume of edits, but has kept his head down and has avoided controversy as far as I can see. He has received some off-wiki criticism for removing Kurdish as an official language of Iraq and for "vandalizing all the pages of Moroccan cities by removing their Tamazight name. Tamazight being the native language of North Africa." He has engaged in the same tendentious behavior by removing Amazigh names. 

Wikipedia jurist 'CaptainEek'

Islamists and pan-Arabists hate references to indigenous cultures (such as Jews). Therefore, this editor's contributions suggest a Moroccan focus and perhaps a Moroccan location. He or she also is one of the many Wikipedia editors who proudly sport the "user box" saying they support the "right of return" (Israel's destruction.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Skitash did not write this article alone. It was a group effort, consisting of a number of anti-Israel  Wikipedia editors, not a single one of whom sought to tone down the pro-Hamas slant of the article, which originally did not have "massacre" in its title. The article was given that title by User:Rafe87, who edits aggressively to push the pro-Hamas point of view and has even been sanctioned. Like "Skitash," "Rafe87" was also not on arbcom's radar screen in the recent case.

These editors' agenda has not caught the attention of Wikipedia, but you can bet that the off-wiki criticism (including this blog) will do so. One member of the largely anonymous "Arbitration Committee," called "CaptainEek," has gained support for the view that editing an article in a manner consistent with off-site criticism is verboten, even though it does not violate Wikipedia policy. But violating Wikipedia policy? That is OK with her.

Even if Rafe87, Skitash and dozens of other pro-Hamas editors were to be punished for their behavior, as a few more visible editors were recently sanctioned by arbcom, it would make little difference. Wikipedia is structurally anti-Israel, is flooded with pro-Hamas operatives, and under U.S. law it is unaccountable and invulnerable to outside pressure. Not much can be done about that. But the tax exemption of the Wikipedia parent company is another matter.

Since Wikipedia clearly does not serve the public interest, one area that should be explored is removal of the Wikimedia Foundation's tax-exempt status.

The Trump Administration is expected to act against Harvard's tax exemption. Whether that's valid or not is for others to decide. But look at this article, this rubbish, this Hamas propaganda and ask yourself: Why does the U.S. taxpayer support a website that produce this drivel in not one but thousands of articles? 

Hey, Did You Know the Arab World Opposed Nazi Antisemitism? So Says Wikipedia

Arabs were against the Nazis antisemitism! They just loved Jews (to death)

One of the joys of reading Wikipedia is that you are exposed to novel versions of history. They aren't true, but they are always different, and they are never surprising when it comes to Jews, Israel, Zionism and Arabs. 

Jews are bad. Israelis are really bad. Zionists are colonial oppressors. Arabs are wonderful people. Tolerant as hell. Love Jews.

A good example is the Wikipedia article "Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world." Its current incarnation can be found here. 

In the 1940s, the Arab world was a hotbed of pro-Nazi sentiment. That is what actually happened, according to every historical account that's worth more than its weight in spit. 

But that is not what the lead of this article says, because (see the illustration at the top) it was sanitized into a fairy tale by the editor "Smallangryplanet," a rising star in the ranks of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel and antisemitic editors.

Thanks to their deft editing last December 30, which has never been reversed, the article now omits a sentence saying  "One foundation of such collaborations [between the Nazis and Arabs] was the antisemitism of the Nazis, which was shared by some Arab and Muslim leaders, most notably the exiled Palestinian leader, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini."

"Smallangryplanet" also added "anti-Semitic" to a whitewash sentence at the top of the article, which says that "In terms of confrontation, the Arab intellectual elite was very critical towards Nazism, which was perceived as a totalitarian, racist, anti-Semitic and imperialist phenomenon."

Yep, the Arab world just hated antisemitism! It was just brimming with tolerance back in the 1940s. Woke as hell.

Wikipedia is that bad. Truly. No matter how much you find Wikipedia insufferable, it's not enough.

The ADL Wikipedia Report is a Missed Opportunity

The ADL should have named rogue editors and recognized Wikipedia's rigidity

The ADL has produced a comprehensive report on Wikipedia. You can access it here. A press release summarizing it is here. ADL director Jonathan Greenblatt expounding on it is here.

When I first saw this, I exulted on X: "Bravo. The ADL has a first-rate research apparatus and this is precisely the work it should be doing. But don't let this be a one-off. Make Wikipedia research a regular feature. Devote resources to it." I still feel that way, in general.

But then I read the report and realized that it is a missed opportunity. The ADL report, while it points to real issues in a very good way, sometimes fails to grasp how Wikipedia operates. And in one major respect, naming rogue editors, it pulls its punches.

Here is an "executive summary," as the ADL would put it.

No Wikipedia accounts are mentioned. 

According to the report: 

ADL has found clear evidence that a group of at least 30 editors circumvent Wikipedia’s policies in concert to introduce antisemitic narratives, anti-Israel bias, and misleading information.

These 30 editors were much more active than other comparable groups of editors, on average, by a factor of at least two, based on total edits made over the past 10 years. [bold typeface in original]

This finding was followed by some charts and statistics showing how much damage these editors are doing. That is great. As I have pointed out on several past occasions, Wikipedia loves statistics. Its editors, administrators and "arbitrators" (its ruling body) include a lot of nerds and nerds love to "quantify" things. They love "data" even when its utterly bogus and proves nothing. In this instance, it proves a lot.

Had the editors been named, this data could have been used to discipline, and perhaps even ban, the editors named. Failure to include this information is inexcusable.

The ADL naively disregards Wikipedia's rigid, cultlike culture

I agree with most of its recommendations, especially for people outside Wikipedia. 

I like that it recommends that search results downgrade Wikipedia. Its recommendations on LLMs ("large language models" used in artificial intelligence) are excellent. I think its recommendations for the government are also great. I hope the ADL makes a major effort to implement all of these suggestions.

I also generally agree with its recommendations for Wikipedia. But there's a problem.

The problem is that they fly in the face of the reality of Wikipedia, which is that it is a cult, hidebound and rigid, self-governed by a great mass of anonymous people, that it rewards groupthink and mediocrity, is intrinsically and structurally left-leaning and antisemitic, and anxious to retain all these repulsive qualities. 

Sure, I want Wikipedia to make major structural changes and I also want pigs to fly.

There is no question that the ADL is right. Wikipedia should not decide discussion closures by majority vote. I agree that "decisions on controversial content that become the subject of talk page discussions should be decided on the merits by specially designated closure editors."

But that kind of major change is not going to happen. Never. Forget about it. Why? Because this kind of change is decided by majority vote. Catch-22. It will never, ever, be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the WMF does not even have the power to do so if it wanted to, which it does not.

The suggestion for "experts" becoming involved in the process is not going to happen for that reason, and that is good, because it is a bad idea. As the ADL itself points out, the website is beset by pro-Hamas editors. So if "experts" are brought in, those "experts" would be pro-Hamas as well.    

And then there's this recommendation:

Wikipedia should evaluate their existing tools against inauthentic behavior and foreign influence to determine whether they’re adequate to address current issues/concerns. Wikipedia has a reputation for effectively safeguarding against this type of risk, but is vulnerable to such actors introducing bias, especially over the long term and on lower visibility pages. 

Whoever wrote this has no idea what they're talking about. 

Wikipedia has no tools "against inauthentic behavior" and it absolutely does not have a "reputation for effectively safeguarding against this type of risk." That's rubbish. This is a real problem, to be sure, but Wikipedia does nothing to address it, certainly regarding state actors from the Middle East.

I still stand by what I said on X. I'm glad the ADL came out with this report. I'm glad the ADL is publicizing it. I hope the ADL throws more resources into this. I hope they make it a major, regular effort. Keep it coming.

But please, ADL, name the damn editors. And try to show more savvy about how Wikipedia works. 

Also, tell people not to contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Drive that point home. Tell people that constantly, especially toward the end of the year. 

Wikipedia views you as an enemy. They have screwed you over. Reciprocate.

Wikipedia Highlights Fringe 'Jewish' Tokens in Khalil Article

Mainstream Jewish reaction to Khalil takes a back seat

At every major anti-Israel and antisemitic demonstration since Oct. 7, pro-Hamas crazies have put fringe, self-hating "Jewish" tokens on prominent display. 

It's how they fend off accusations of antisemitism. "How can we be antisemitic? Look at all our pet Jews!" The strategy works just fine with sympathetic journalists.

I haven't surveyed media coverage, but the Hamas strategy is working just fine on Wikipedia, which has created a typically slanted article on Mahmoud Khalil, the pro-Hamas activist the Trump Administration is seeking to deport. 

A prominent subsection is set aside for "Reactions," and Jewish groups are given prominent play. But not actual Jewish groups representing the majority of Jews, but rather tiny, pro-Hamas front groups like Jewish Voice For Peace, IfNotNow, and, bizarrely, the Putin stooge Jill Stein. 

An incomplete list of non-fringe groups supporting the move, like the ADL, is shoved off at the very end.

There are two principal takeaways from this ongoing propaganda fest, and they are deeply discouraging:

1. This article is an example of Wikipedia's ingrained anti-Israel and antisemitic bias, but it was not a product of what I call the "Wikipedia Flood," the small but productive coterie of pro-Hamas editors. The editor who created the article, "Francisdpas89" is a new editor who  started out the article in a perfectly inoffensive manner. 

2. After the article was created, the article was slanted in a team effort by a bunch of editors I've never heard of. In other words, it was not a product of the "Flood." It is just a good example of how Wikipedia works every day. If I'm mistaken, someone should bring that to my attention, but I'm not seeing a small group of activists at work here, just a large number of editors for who would never dream of tokenizing any minority group but Jews.

That's what people don't understand about Wikipedia. It is a group effort. Responsibility is diffused, accountability is nonexistent. Efforts to take a top-down approach, such as by writing letters of complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation or bringing cases at "Arbcom," are doomed to failure. Efforts to pitch in and edit are doomed to failure as well, because then the editors will get sandbagged by anti-Israel and antisemitic administrators and editors.

So what can one do about this kind of thing? A lot, but it takes work.

As I've said before, the only way to deal with Wikipedia is to defund it, to end Section 230 so that it no longer has legal armor, and to destroy its reputation by spreading the word about its ingrained, institutional antisemitic and anti-Israel bias.

There is Only One Solution: Section 230 Demolition

Wikipedia must be sued to stop antisemitic atrocities like this

For the greater part of the year, this blog has been documenting Wikipedia's pro-Hamas bias. One question that we frequently get is simple: "What can I do about it?"

The answer, unfortunately, has been "Not much." Early on, we published a guide on how to navigate Wikipedia's contradictory rules. But Wikipedia regulars and "power users" are hostile to new editors, and it's easy to get blocked even if you follow the rules.

Wikipedia acts as if it is responsible to no one, and even its top body, its "Arbitration Committee," wields enormous power without accountability. It can't be sued if Wikipedia acts as an outlet for Hamas propaganda, allowing antisemitism and anti-Israel extremism to infect its thousands of articles on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. 

The reason for this is an outcome liability shield called Section 230.

Fortunately, the new Trump Administration has pointed the way toward a solution. According to the New York Post, Trump's new Federal Communications Committee chairman Brendan is weighing steps to curb Section 230:

Congress passed the Section 230 provision as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 — essentially giving tech a pass for third-party postings on their platforms.

The thinking was that lawsuits over defamation, etc., created by third parties could cripple innovation in the new ­economy.

Plus, unlike traditional media, they’re simply ­unbiased conduits of information.

They don’t operate as a traditional publisher by hosting a message board, chat room and should not accept the liability that goes along with it.

But Carr, my sources say, believes the world has changed dramatically since the early days of the Internet.

Social media has replaced chat rooms.

The operators of these sites make all sorts of editorial decisions.

 That certainly applies to Wikipedia, which is specifically cited in the article:  "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, publishes consequence-free stuff based on the mostly progressive political views of the volunteers who supply its content, critics allege."

It's not clear what Carr can do to force Wikipedia to be forced to take responsibility for its content. Post columnist and Fox News reporter Charles Gasparino says as follows:

How he gets there is the great unknown among telecom lawyers I spoke to.

The FCC — with a new GOP majority led by Carr — is the top regulator of media, new and old.

It has the legal authority to interpret Section 230, and change the prior guidance that has given those expansive protections to Big Tech.

He can weaken or eliminate the shield by issuing a so-called advisory opinion.

Then it’s up to the courts to decide if they should use his guidance when they weigh Section 230 cases.

There’s a good chance many will, particularly in litigation before conservative judges.

That means defamation cases against Big Tech that have been dismissed in the past on summary judgments could have “standing” in the courts and move toward discovery depending on how a judge interprets the FCC edict.

Tech firms could settle rather than fight because litigation is never cheap.

So watch this space. Focus on this. Wikipedia must be defunded. It must also be sued. Legal and financial pressure are the only solution to the takeover of Wikipedia by pro-Hamas operatives.

Wikipedia 'Arbitrators' Tearfully Sanction Pro-Hamas Editors, Scream at Anti-Pro-Hamas Editors

Arbitrator 'ToBeFree' is too busy with other things to look at evidence

Wikipedia's so-called "Arbitration Committee" yesterday issued a final decision in its months-long examination of "Palestine-Israel" editing. Much attention has focused on the topic bans imposed on six pro-Hamas editors, which Jewish groups like the ADL are celebrating.

I described the arbcom decision in my last blog post and explained in my X feed why the rejoicing is unwarranted. 

In this post I will explain further how arbcom employed blatant double standards in crafting its decision, which was whipped together by the volunteer, unpaid, unaccountable "arbs" with little thought.

Wikipedia jurist "CaptainEek"

As I mentioned in my last post, the principal drafter of the decision, "CaptainEek," was so anxious to penalize the pro-Israel editor AndreJustAndre that she just  outright lied and claimed, without evidence, that AndreJustAndre had complied with requests by me, in this blog, to edit specific articles.  I don't do such things, as even a casual skim of this blog would have revealed. 

That was voted down by the committee. Yet only not a single arb pointed out that she was just making stuff up. 

One arb, the 28-year-old German "linux enthusiast" "ToBefree," adopted CaptianEek's reasoning, saying "I'm not a fan of the proxy editing for a blogger and do think such behavior is rather disruptive than something to be endorsed." 

The fact that there was no "proxy editing," and no one produced any evidence that there was, didn't bother him. He just accepted her assertion as proof.  

ToBeFree was not alone. The arbs voted penalties and non-penalties based upon how other arbs voted, and made comments revealing their own biases and prejudices. Few arbs appeared to actually read the evidence.

One common theme was that topic bans of pro-Hamas operatives would deprive Wikipedia of fantastic editors. 

That arose during a topic ban discussion concerning Levivich. He is one of the worst of a bad bunch, a dogmatic anti-Israel operative who has worked hard to turn the article on Zionism into an anti-Zionist polemic, and performed similar tasks for the Cause in dozens of other articles. 

There was overwhelming evidence of such "non-neutral editing" and that he repeatedly bullied and harassed other editors, but it was ignored by a disturbingly large number of arbs.

Even though ultimately deciding to impose a topic ban, multiple arbs actually praised Levivich and insisted that he was a darn good editor, a real asset to "the project."

"I think Levivich is generally an excellent and thoughtful editor, and I was actually quite impressed with them at times," said CaptainEek. His effort to turn the Zionism article into pro-Hamas garbage didn't bother her, and it's probable from the praise she lavished on him that she approved. 

Captain Eek described Levivich as being "well meaning" even when he was attacking other editors. She said that she "respected" his desire to "work from first principles" (i.e., denigrating Israel at every opportunity), and that he should "focus what he is really best at: the sources. I don't think anybody had better dedication to sources in this topic area than Levivich."

This is true. The evidence was overwhelming that Levivich cherry-picked some of the most extreme anti-Israel "sources" in his efforts to turn Wikipedia articles into Hamas propaganda.

Other arbs picked up on that theme, reacting not to the evidence but to their colleague's praise.

Wikipedia jurist "H.J. Mitchell"

"Levivich is very skilled at digging through sources, but his pattern of behavior here is often disruptive," said the arb "Elli." 

 "A net-positive" said arb "HJ Mitchell," a smug Brit who poses proudly in an underexposed photo on his user page, wearing an ill-fitting t-shirt and sporting a bad haircut. 

When it came time to consider penalties for Levivich, a mere  "admonishing" came within two votes of passage. CaptainEek favored that, reminding her colleagues that "Levivich is a great researcher, and one of the most source focused editors in PIA." 

Yet even that non-penalty was opposed by ToBeFree, "The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient to me," he said, proving again that he didn't even skim the evidence.

Ultimately the arbs topic-banned Levivich, which CaptainEek rejected. She described this longtime Hamas tool as "generally conducive to feedback, so I have every reason to believe they'll take the concerns here to heart." Topic banning him, she said, would "be a waste (and fulfill Icewhiz's deepest dreams)." 

That bizarre reference to "Icewhiz" refers to a long-banned pro-Israel editor who is often trotted out in paranoid fashion as an offsite pro-Israel evildoer, as I mentioned in a recent post.

CaptainEek continued: "As I've already identified, Levivich is very dedicated to using quality sources in the topic area, and is generally quite principled. A topic ban just goes way too far." 

HJ Mitchell proposed an alternate remedy that would have allowed his buddy to insert anti-Israel propaganda only in "historical conflicts or the broader Middle East conflict." But that was so peculiar that it failed to win enough votes.

And on and on it went. Administrator Zero0000, a longtime anti-Israel editor who has received scrutiny as far back as 2019, received a mere warning despite extensive evidence of his misconduct, and even though administrators are supposed to be held to higher standards than ordinary editors.

 

The two pro-Israel editors didn't get kid gloves treatment, and weren't praised as net-positives or skilled and so on. BilledMammal was falsely accused of "misrepresenting sources" and that he "weaponized reporting systems against perceived ideological enemies." The latter was based in part on "private evidence," which is Wikipedia-speak for poison-pen letters sent to arbcom on the sly.

AndreJustAndre was similarly raked over the coals by the arbs, who came close to banning him from Wikipedia completely, a penalty that wasn't even considered for pro-Hamas editors except Ïvana, who this blog revealed was running an offsite coordination effort.

After the ban effort failed to get enough votes (though it came close), the arbs crafted a special humiliation just for Andre, a "suspended site ban" under which he is subject to banning if someone who doesn't like him takes it up with arbcom.  "And we really mean it this time!" exclaimed arb "Theleekycauldron." 

The takeaway here is that Wikipedia's highest tribunal, which wields great power, is a joke. Its members are as unserious and ditsy as their idiotic handles and the screwball photos they put on their user pages. 

Their laziness, stupidity and cheerful incompetence isn't a bug in the Wikipedia system. It is a feature.

Wikipedia's 'Arbitrators' Prove There Are No Adults in the Room—Only Kangaroos

Wikipedia's kangaroo court points up the need for Section 230 reform

As I've mentioned in several posts, Wikipedia's highest tribunal, its "Arbitration Committee," has been grappling with the "Palestine-Israel" topic area since August. Over the past two weeks, they finally cranked out a tentative decision.

The proceedings are still underway, and there is still potential for mischief. But it's been mostly decided, and the great Aaron Bandler has done a thorough job of summarizing its "actions" in Jewish Journal. 

As Aaron explains, the anti-Israel editors Iskandar323, Levivich, Nableezy, Selfstudier, Makeandtoss, and Nishidani were topic-banned, which can and will be appealed after one year. Zero0000, an administrator, was "warned." Two pro-Israel editors,  AndreJustAndre and BilledMammal, were also topic banned.

My takeaways:

• While there was much whining by the affected anti-Israel editors, this was a net win for the Wikipedia Flood. They far outnumber editors willing to oppose them. Six topic bans barely dent their ranks, while two of the most active editors seeking to restore balance to articles were topic banned, and one faces a possible site ban as described below. 

• Arbcom ignored some of the very worst anti-Israel editors, such as the rape-denier Huldra and the silky Sean.hoyland, valued by the "Flood" for cranking out meaningless "data" to "prove" that Wikipedia is awash with pro-Israel "sockpuppets."

• Only one pro-Hamas editor was banned, Ïvana. That took place before the proceedings began and was caused by her role in an offsite pro-Hamas effort to slant editing on Wikipedia. Exposure by this blog and Ashley Rindsberg in Pirate Wires made that impossible to ignore. 

• At this writing it appears that the most active pro-Israel editor in the case, "AndreJustAndre," may be banned from the site based on trumped-up misconduct allegations by anti-Israel editors. None of the topic-banned pro-Hamas editors face that punishment.

• 

  Meet 'CaptainEek'

  The arb who drafted the preliminary decision, "CaptainEek," didn't even pretend to read the evidence and "workshop" analysis. Her laziness was so blatant that she was derided on Wikipediocracy, a criticism site that pays close attention to arbcom. One regular sneered, "With CaptainEek at the helm, the Titanic would never have hit an iceberg. It wouldn't have made it out of port." 

• CaptainEek claimed in her decision draft that AndreJustAndre made "specific edits after an off-wiki blogger requested those edits be made." That, she later clarified, referred to this blog. That contention was so utterly bonkers—even a casual reader knows that I don't "request" edits—that it was rejected by the other arbs. 

• While they did not adopt Captain Eek's wildest claims, most arbs were almost as irresponsible and lazy as she was. The panel's arbitrary decision-making was harshly criticized by other editors in the "talk" page of the proposed decision. On Wikipediocracy, a user pointed to "multiple editors calling out arbcom for conclusions based on incorrect ‘facts,’" and added "They didn’t read the evidence. They just want to be done."

In short, arbcom showed outright favoritism toward pro-Hamas editors by their selective and skewed enforcement of the rules, and proved itself to be a classic "kangaroo court." 

That's not hyperbole. Arbcom fits the dictionary definition of "a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures."

The very fact that I have to refer to a member of Wikipedia's highest tribunal by their juvenile handle shows how utterly broken Wikipedia is. Most arbs, CaptainEek among them, conceal their identities in star-chamber fashion despite the immense power they wield on the site.

 

What these anonymous Wiki-jurists proved in this case is that Wikipedia's highest tribunal is both unwilling and unable to curb highly organized propagandists who infiltrate the site to push pro-Hamas and antisemitic propaganda. 

Their actions prove that they are unserious. The goofy pictures they post of themselves, like the ones CaptainEek posts on her personal Wikipedia page (above) just gild the lily.

And since arbcom is an outright kangaroo court that disregards evidence and behaves without accountability, it is actually an obstacle to improving the site. How can editors oppose the pro-Hamas operatives if they believe arbcom will come swooping down and kick them out without a valid reason?  

Wikipedia's editor-oversight panel is allowed to fester like this for a reason. 

The highly compensated executives of the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns the servers, take no responsibility for Wikipedia content because of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. 

The Congressional Research Service says that Section 230

generally precludes providers and users from being held liable—that is, legally responsible—for information provided by another person, but does not prevent them from being held legally responsible for information that they have developed or for activities unrelated to third-party content. Courts have interpreted Section 230 to foreclose a wide variety of lawsuits and to preempt laws that would make providers and users liable for third-party content. For example, the law has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content.

There's a need for that law and it shouldn't be repealed. It protects innocuous websites from unwarranted legal attack. But it can function as a recipe for lack of accountability, and that is not acceptable. 

Section 230 should not apply to Wikipedia.

Pro-Hamas Editors Use 'Wikipedia Lawfare' to Ban Pro-Israel Editors

 

Pro-Hamas editors claim a defunct account is an 'Emmanuel Goldstein' pro-Israel mastermind

Since August I've described how Wikipedia's highest tribunal, its so-called "Arbitration Committee," has been slowly and reluctantly addressing editor misconduct in the "Palestine-Israel" topic area. That effort is finally winding down, and a key part of the pro-Hamas editors' strategy is clear.  

They claim that the main problem in this topic area is not their own behavior, not their "ownership" of articles, not their perversion of Wikipedia's "neutrality" mandate, but widespread, improper pro-Israel editing.

That's right. Your lying eyes deceive. The real problem in articles accusing Israel of genocide and massacres etc etc is excessive pro-Israel editing due to diabolical use of "sockpupeting," in which villainous pro-Israel people create phony accounts to pad talk page discussions to go in their direction.

The fact that discussions in these articles' talk pages never, ever go in the pro-Israel direction, and the articles themselves are notoriously anti-Israel, is never mentioned when pro-Hamas editors push this line. They portray themselves as heroic "defenders of the Wiki" who are a front line of defense against those horrible people, preventing further damage to Wikipedia, further pro-Israel bias.

This nutty claim is made frequently on the arbcom case "evidence" page, in which prolific pro-Hamas editor "Makeandtoss" posted a chart—arbcom loves charts!—to "prove" that the "actual root causes of problem are sockpuppets who are canvassing, stonewalling, coordinating and disrupting." 

This claim is absurd on its face, for the simple reasons that all the sockpuppets claimed in that chart were caught, and before they were caught absolutely nothing they did had any lasting or even transitory impact on anything. All were new accounts, all outnumbered, all shouted down.

Most genuine sockpuppeting are easy to catch, because Wikipedia used a device called "checkuser" to determine if someone is using computers with the same or similar IP address to create multiple Wikipedia accounts.  

And here's where it gets interesting. If checkuser comes up naught, Wikipedia's pro-Hamas editors have long been able to get accounts banned by claiming that the accounts are editing similar to accounts that were banned a long time ago. This is known as "behavioral evidence." Wikipedia administrators, who are often hostile to Israel themselves, fall for this ruse frequently.

Long-defunct banned pro-Israel accounts, especially one dormant since 2019 known as "Icewhiz," are commonly used for that purpose. 

Icewhiz is frequently accused of contaminating Wikipedia by his voracious Israel advocacy and prolific sockpuppet-making, making that long-banned editor a kind of "Emanuel Goldstein" figure, to be hated by all right-thinking Wikipedians.

The beauty of accusing someone of being an "Icewhiz sock" is that you don't need much evidence. In fact, you can get people banned if the evidence doesn't amount to anything.

Of the 12 accounts cited by Makeandtoss in his chart, nine of which were supposed "Icewhiz socks," all but were two were caught by "behavioral" evidence despite nonexistent or dubious technical evidence. 

For example: Two pro-Israel accounts in the Makeandtoss chart, "UnspokenPassion" and "O.maximov," were blocked as Icewhiz socks in September after a complaint by the anti-Israel editor "Levivich."

He contended that "O.maximov and UnspokenPassion show the same basic POV, similarity of comments, and "drive-by" habit," as "evidenced" by the following horrors:

Israel

• O.maximov ("if the Israeli War of Independence isn't mentioned, then it makes no sense to mention the Nakba")
• UnspokenPassion ("If we include Nakba, we’d have to bring in more narratives, like the Independence War, as mentioned above.")
• This is the only edit UnspokenPassion has made to the talk page, no edits to the article; O.maximov has edited both

Genocide of indigenous peoples

• O.maximov ("We're looking at two groups, both with historical ties to the land, both claiming indigenity.")
• UnspokenPassion ("The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is generally understood as a struggle between two ethnic groups, both laying claim to being indigenous.")
• These are the only edits either account made to that article's talk page. O.maximov made one edit to the article; UnspokenPassion has made no edits to the article.

Palestinian suicide terrorism - an article created by UnspokenPassion

• UnspokenPassion ("... the term 'terrorism' is entirely appropriate (for instance, see examples like Islamic terrorism, Jewish extremist terrorism, etc.).")
• O.maximov ("It is unclear to me why there are calls to remove the term from this article while its usage in the above mentioned articles like Jewish extremist terrorism, Islamic terrorism, and, I will add, Israel and state-sponsored terrorism is accepted.")
• This is the only edit O.maximov has made to this article or its talk page

Based on that nothingburger, the two editors were assumed to be that villain Icewhiz, up to his old tricks. Administrator (and arbitrator) H.J. Mitchell agreed, saying:

I'm reluctant to draw definitive conclusions here but the behaviour is consistent with previous IW socks and CU data shows that both of these accounts are unusually sophisticated in obfuscating their IPs. Both are using proxies and are very careful not to overlap. I'm gonna call this  Likely and block both.

Note that the technical evidence actually does not prove that these editors are the same person, but he ascribes that to them being "unusually sophisticated in obfuscating their IPs." The problem is that "the behaviour is consistent with previous IW [Icewhiz] socks." Which he does not elaborate but apparently refers to the nothingburger quoted above. 

Veteran anti-Israel editor "Sean.hoyland" piled on with a presentation of his own, which he placed in a Google Docs file to nail another pro-Israel editor, ABHammad. (Be careful clicking on that Google Docs file, as it shows your account if you are logged in to Google). ABHammad was subsequently kicked off Wikipedia on the basis of that "evidence."

What's happening here is the Wikipedia counterpart of "lawfare," and they are making the most of it. Pro-Hamas editors are contending in the arbcom case that these sockpuppets, even though they were caught, even though their influence is nil, are just the tip of the iceberg of a massive pro-Israel editing push, and that the topic area is already infected with bogus pro-Israeli accounts.   

In one recent posting, Makeandtoss claims that he has "extremely important new evidence relevant to what I had described as 'systemic and institutional manipulation.'" 

A day later, obviously shaken by the enormity of the crimes he has uncovered, he posted:

I have now emailed the committee my evidence, which unfortunately does indeed indicate extensive state actor involvement, particularly at the highest levels. This evidence can be posted in other WP venues to raise awareness among both editors and admins, but I believe it is particularly relevant for this one, so that preventative action can be taken.

Oh no! Thank heavens for heroes like this, protecting Wikipedia from this scourge. 

Will all that massive pro-Israel sockpuppeting and "manipulation" be curbed?  Will arbcom valiantly fight this horror, this stain on its reputation? Stay tuned.