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.

Wikipedia's Highest Court Timidly Confronts the Anti-Israel Mob

 

The rape denier 'Huldra' is not a party to the 'arbcom' case

In August I described how Wikipedia's so-called "Arbitration Committee," the website's highest tribunal, had begun considering if it would deal with the Wikipedia Flood. At the time I was downbeat.

In my blog item, I opined that while action against the Flood was possible, it was "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."

So far my initial view has been borne out. While there was a positive development, it is far less than meets the eye.

The positive development is that last week, arbcom took action against editors involved in the effort by anti-Israel operatives to coordinate their actions offsite. 

That's good news. The bad news is that they did so because they had to, and what they did was limited and grudging.  

Back in August I broke the story of the "Tech for Palestine" offsite propaganda effort, and followed up with this blog item describing how the pro-Hamas crew covered its tracks. 

Arbcom had to take action, but not because of my blog. Blogs can be ignored, but news articles are another matter. Tech for Palestine was a centerpiece of Ashley Rindsberg's excellent article in Pirate Wires. That and the constant stream of articles in Jewish Journal by Aaron Bandler, who has been on the Wikipedia bias story for months, prodded arbcom to act on this blatant violation of Wikipedia rules. 

Their action was limited and ineffectual. 

A grand total of one editor was kicked off the site. That was "Ïvana," who was the "resident expert" in charge of the propagandizing effort.

But other pro-Hamas editors involved in the offsite effort were merely "topic banned." This kind of "canvassing" flies in the face of Wikipedia rules, totally perverting the site's ethos by rigging the game, and pro-Israel editors involved in such efforts in the past have been sitebanned. But the pro-Hamas editors, by contrast, were treated with kid gloves.

Even worse: arbcom has, so far at least, omitted from the case some of the most vicious anti-Israel editors. 

Among the non-parties is the longtime, trash-talking pro-Hamas activist Nishidani and the creepy antisemite Huldra, notorious for her disgusting claim that 10/7 rape victim Na'ama Levy, photographed with blood on her crotch, was "having a period." 

Huldra was never even given as much as a wrist slap for that depraved comment. Nor is anything likely to happen to this editor because she is not even a party to the proceedings.

If any action is taken against the few pro-Hamas editors listed as parties, it is likely to be "balanced' in cowardly fashion by action against innocent editors who have sought to curb their influence.

I may be proven wrong, but wagering on another triumph by the Wikipedia Flood is always a safe bet.

UPDATE: Nishidani was added as a party. But the rape denier Huldra? Nope.

Dispatches From the Wikipedia Battlefield

In response to the torrent of tips and suggestions I've been getting from readers, including Wikipedia users, I'm commencing a live blog, "dispatches from the Wikipedia battlefield," describing articles and internal organs that are under assault by the "Wikipedia flood" of anti-Israel and sometimes pro-Hamas and antisemitic editors.

These will consist of links and brief descriptions. Updates will appear at the top.  Suggestions should be sent to me via Twitter DMs or email. 

November 9

 

A brave and possibly suicidal Wikipedia editor, "BilledMammal," has petitioned the site's "Arbitration Committee" to do something as appealing to them as swallowing rusty nails. 

This optimistic person wants the lassitude-addicted arbs to take up offsite coordination of pro-Hamas editing, which I wrote about here and in a follow-up post, and which Ashley Rindsberg examined in his Piratewires article.

The Flood is of course outeaged! Why this request is itself a violation of Wikipedia rules, which they clutch tightly to their bosons. Et cetra.

The arbs are not going to examine a thing, of course, except maybe, at most, drop-kicking BilledMammal out of Wikipedia. He hasn't done anything wrong but they'll think of something. 

Follow the charade here.

November 5

Anti-Israel editors, horrified by the very existence of the Wikipedia and Antisemitism article, have gone offsite to dox its creator. They are doing so on "Wikipediocracy," a Wikipedia-focused message board where Flood members are active. The doxing effort began in a public area but moved into a private forum, where the sleuths are batting around the possible identity of the culprit.

Wikipediocracy likes to think of itself as an "investigative" website, and they've created a puffy article on themselves on Wikipedia. But its members are mainly focused on settling old scores and, as in this case, targeting pro-Israel editors. 

November 4

An article on Wikipedia and Antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_antisemitism has sent the Wikipedia Flood into hysterics. Delete it! Delete it! Merge it! The article has multiple issues! Don't expect it to last long.

November 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=1255134766&oldid=1254649211

The empire strikes back.

The "resident expert" of the Discord offsite anti-Israel coordination effort, "Ïvana," rants and raves and deflects in response to Scharb, while "Sean.hoyland," the Wikipedia Flood Chief Meaningless Numbers-Cruncher, offers up "data" in support of his comrades.

November 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral)

Arbcom continues to consider whether it will take up a complaint against pro-Hamas editors. This has resulted in a torrent of word-salad filibusters, meaningless "data" and gaslighting from the editors involved and their allies. At the current time they're one vote away from taking the case.

But there have been some gems amid the rubble. Recently one editor, "Scharb," has posted a detailed statement concerning the offsite coordination of pro-Hamas editing, which I wrote about here and in a follow-up post, and which Ashley Rindsberg thoroughly explored in his Piratewires article.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Scharb 

permalink https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=1254649211&oldid=1254590332

Arbcom is anxious to steer clear of the so-called "Israel/Palestine" subject area, knowing full well that pro-Hamas propagandists will bombard them with an avalanche of bullshit. By raising the offsite coordination of editing, "Scharb" has made it harder for them to shirk their duty. Stay tuned.

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

The largest section of the article is criticism

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

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

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

Wikipedia has the following guideline for deprecated sources: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The documentary is smeared as a 'propaganda technique'

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

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

Pro-Hamas Wikipedia Collaboration Site Covers Its Tracks

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discord username: samerbhh_83208

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

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

discord username: wamelslice

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

discord username: ivana_0808

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

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

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

discord username: hadyawaqfi8150

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

discord username: tbd

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

discord username: isoscelesprime

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

discord username: pomme.de.discorrdde

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

discord username: ummahrican

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

discord username: tbd

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

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

discord username: shushugah

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

discord username: .baderdean

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

discord username: agent_na 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Welcome to Wikipedia Collaboration!"

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

"Fighting on the Wikipedia front"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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