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 '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.

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. 

The Wikipedia Flood's Latest Claim: An Invasion by Pro-Israel Automatons

Beware of the pro-Israel automatons

Back in August I described how Wikipedia's highest tribunal, its "Arbitration Committee," had begun to consider if it would deal with infighting in the "Israel-Palestine" topic area. With great reluctance, it decided in November to begin a case. 

The Wikipedia Flood—the Hamasniks and antisemites who control articles on everything related to Israel—is of course anxious to turn the proceedings in its favor. They have done so largely through three tactics:

1. They deflect through meaningless charts and tables designed to "quantify" that your lying eyes deceive you, that vast stretches of Wikipedia haven't become systematically slanted against Israel. This can be an effective tactic, because Wikipedia editors are often nerds, easily swayed by charts and statistics.

2. They've claimed that "sockpuppeting" by pro-Israel people is the real problem, even though this crude tactic is easily caught and has no lasting impact on the articles.  

Meaningless 'data' is a Flood favorite

3. Lastly we have the Flood's latest gambit. They are contending that the problem is you. Yes you, the reader of this blog and other critical coverage of Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias! If that is, you are a Wikipedia editor. In which case you should be drummed out of the site, based purely on edits that maybe, possibly, align with external criticism of Wikipedia.

There is a lot of criticism of Wikipedia on multiple websites, such as the largely anti-Israel "Wikipediocracy," which has entire sections aimed at influencing content, but that doesn't bother them. 

The Flood is claiming that the very act of reading the coverage that has come out in recent months about how dreadful Wikipedia has become—including this blog, Aaron Bandler's fine articles the Pirate Wires piece by Ashley Rindsberg, and reams of other coverage—turns you into a mindless automaton carrying out "tasks," even if you've been editing Wikipedia for years and are a reasonably sentient human being.  

Don't believe me. Just look at what they've written.

In a "workshop" page associated with the Arbcom case, Wikipedia Flood regular "Sean.Hoyland" (who is not a party to the case despite his years of hammering away at hundreds of articles) pursued that theme at length in several posts, including this one:

I don't know whether "editing influenced by outside suggestions" is prohibited or allowed. There are a lot of external actors trying to exert an influence over Wikipedia content every day. They are not part of the community, and they are not sanctionable. Should editors be allowed to participate in those campaigns/influence operations by executing the tasks they assign? To me it makes no difference whether the editor agrees or disagrees with the objective of the task or whether that external party's view is consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy. It's about whether there is a firewall between what happens on wiki and what happens off-wiki. 

Note what I've put in boldface. Coverage is spun as "tasks" that, if "executed," contaminate Wikipedia like a computer virus that requires a "firewall." 

By this logic, the existence of outside news coverage  and criticism of Wikipedia is the problem, not the contents of that coverage and criticism.

How do we know that a Wikipedia editor has been programmed into a robot, carrying out the commands of nefarious forces? Sean.Hoyland sets forth the criteria as follows:

What you can observe is the external 'change x to y' task, whether it was actioned, and the parties involved. You can then ask questions about the nature of the source that created the task and the objective of the task e.g. is the source a supporter of an organization that carries out acts of mass violence against civilians like ISIS, the Assad regime, the Israeli military, Hamas' military wing, the Russian military, and is the objective consistent with the [Wikipedia] Universal Code of Conduct that prohibits "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". For me, it is not about what current policy says. Current policy doesn't work. It's about making sure bad actors who shouldn't be anywhere near Wikipedia content have zero impact on content.

As spun by Sean.Hoyland, criticism of Wikipedia's anti-Israel slant becomes, again, a "task," and coverage favoring Israeli military is put on a par with ISIS, the Assad regime, Hamas and Putin. That, he claims, falls afoul of Wikipedia's "universal code of conduct," so therefore such people (meaning you, by reading this blog) are "bad actors" who "shouldn't be anywhere near Wikipedia content" and must "have zero impact on content."

While Sean.Hoyland clearly has no problem with Wikipedia criticism sites in general, only the ones that expose the Wikipedia Flood, his position, if adopted, would make all Wikipedia criticism sites off-limits to Wikipedia editors. This has resulted in some pushback on the anti-Israel Wikipediocracy website.

I should point out here that Sean.Hoyland is a veteran anti-Israel operative whose activities were documented as far back as 2019 and has been mentioned in this blog several times, mainly for producing the meaningless "data" and charts I mentioned above.

That's the Wikipedia Flood's Arbcom game plan. True, this "coverage=tasks" gambit is a sign of desperation, an indication of how much they hate, loathe and despise outside attention to their exploits, but don't underestimate them. They are sophisticated and, I believe, professional operatives who do this for a living.

Their claims may seem phantasmagorical or simply idiotic, but remember that they do a superb job of getting their way, and there's no reason Arbcom won't be swayed by their smorgasbord of deflection, bogus "data" and lies. 

After all, some Arbcom members use their real names. Would you want to antagonize pro-Hamas editors, whose supporters and sponsors can only be surmised, if they knew who you were? 

All one can say with certainty is that even if Arbcom wants to curb the Flood, which is far from certain, it would be an uneven situation. They are overworked, often non-anonymous volunteers facing off against anonymous propagandists. It's no contest. In such a situation the determined, singleminded operatives will always get their way. 

How Wikipedia Weaponizes Antisemitism—Against Jews

'Weaponization of Antisemitism' as created by the veteran anti-Israel operative 'Onceinawhile'

In this blog I've documented how antisemites weaponize Jew-hate in the pages of Wikipedia, turning "encyclopedia articles" into anti-Israel and often antisemitic screeds. But did you know that Wikipedia has an article devoted to how antisemitism is weaponized?

Of course, this being Wikipedia, the article does not detail how antisemitism is weaponized against Jews by the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, but rather by Jews against nice people who aren't antisemites. 

The article, titled "Weaponization of antisemitism," was created last Dec. 31 by the veteran anti-Israel propagandist "Onceinawhile." The article was initially illustrated with a cartoon by Carlos Latuff, notorious for employing "classic antisemitic tropes." 

That was, of course, the point of the article—to exonerate Jew-haters like Latuff, by pointing out that those antisemitic tropes he uses aren't antisemitic tropes at all, but rather "criticism of Israel."  

The article, which now looks like this, has since jettisoned its Latuff cartoon, but the polemical point remains. The lead paragraph of the article currently reads as follows:

The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel,^[1] may be described as weaponization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, or playing the antisemitism card.^[2] Bad-faith accusations against Israel's critics have been called a form of smear tactics.^[3] Some writers have compared them to playing the race card.^[4][5]

The article goes on in that vein, with sourcing that relies heavily on anti-Zionist writers like Noam Chomsky and anti-Israel screeds with titles like "Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom," and "Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel."  

There are of course, no articles on Wikipedia with titles like "Weaponization of Islamophobia" or "Weaponization of racism."  

"Onceinawhile," the author of the article, has been around for 14 years and is one of the most prolific anti-Israel editors on Wikipedia. Long before pro-Hamas propagandist descended on Wikipedia en masse after Oct. 7, 2023, "Onceinawhile" was gaining recognition for his agenda, which is to minimize, justify and erase antisemitism. 

He was listed as the "No. 5 Anti-Israel Editor" by "Israel Group" researchers in 2019, when he was singled out for downplaying the severity of antisemitic pogroms: "Onceinawhile is one of the primary participants in systematically removing 'pogrom' from Wikipedia and replacing it with other terms, usually 'riots.'"

British investigative journalist David Collier described Onceinawhile's tactics back in December 2020, in the article  "Exclusive - Project Wiki - how Wikipedia is breeding an army of antisemites." 

Collier pointed out that Onceinawhile:

• Edited the Wiki page on the murderous 1945 anti-Jewish riots in Egypt by adding a single sentence – that the Prime Minister of Egypt blamed the Zionists for provoking the attacks.
• Tried and failed to have the page on the expulsion of Egyptian Jews deleted.
• Edited the page on ‘refugees’. This was an interesting edit. The section on Jewish refugees (which this user edited) is all about how politicised the argument is, how Israel wanted the refugees and the possibility of Zionist false flag attacks. The section immediately above it is all about Palestinian refugees – there is no mention of politicisation and the focus is almost exclusively (and errantly) on forced expulsion. The page was eventually cleaned up – but the insertion about politicisation stuck and is visible on other Wiki Jewish refugee pages (see here).
• Created the page about Ben Gurion’s letter to his son in 1937. The page was weighted to imply that Ben Gurion had stated his intention to expel the Arabs. Placing the original page alongside the current version highlights the problem of correcting bias – whilst individual attempts can be made over time to clean up the entry – the pillar of the page, the very bias with which it was created, remains intact. 

More recently, Onceinawhile was featured in Ashley Rindsberg's Pirate Wires investigation, which described how he was among the most productive anti-Israel editors, frequently acting in collaboration with a hard core of other anti-Israel operatives: 

 As of time of publication, Nableezy and Onceinawhile have co-edited 1,418 articles. Nableezy and Iskandar323 1,429 co-edited articles. Onceinawhile and Zero0000 have co-edited 2,119 articles. Zero000 and Nableezy have co-edited 1,754 articles. Onceinawhile and Iskandar323 have 1,594 co-edited. Huldra and Onceinawhile have co-edited articles 2,493 times. Nableezy and Huldra have co-edited 1,764 times.

At the time he probed Onceinawhile four years ago, Collier pointed out that he "has made over 32000 edits on Wikipedia. The mistake would be in thinking this is an exceptional case."

The edit count is now over 50,000, and Onceinawhile has not been impeded one bit by Wikipedia's vaunted processes, which claim to promote a "neutral point of view" that does not exist in articles relating to Jews and Israel.

Indeed, in August 2024, "Onceinawhile" created a Wikipedia article titled "Masada myth," describing how a well-documented historical event, the Siege of Masada, is a lot of hooey dreamed up by those horrible Israelis to justify their illegitimate state.

It goes without saying that "Onceinawhile" is not a party to the Arbitration Committee proceedings that were recently commenced to examine the "Palestine-Israel" subject area.

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.

A Timely Study Emerges as Wikipedia Weighs 'Israel/Palestine'

 

I've been offline for a while, neglecting this blog, and during my absence a number of things have happened.

Two very important ones are related:

1. Wikipedia's highest tribunal, its "arbitration committee" or "Arbcom," has  voted to open a "case" to consider complaints that anti-Israel and sometimes antisemitic editors have bullied their way into dominating a vast swath of articles on Israel and the Gaza war. The "case" will commence on November 30th.

2. Just as the Arbcom case is about to commence, Canadian researchers have released an impressively thorough study quantifying the behavior of anti-Israel editors. 

A National Post article on the study, by its authors, can be found here. Their analysis "reveals alarming patterns of bias that can cascade through the digital information ecosystem, infecting everything from search engine results to academic citations to social media posts and even AI training data."

I wrote about the arbcom case when it first commenced back in August, and updated several times. As I've described, it began promisingly, with postings by several respected editors pointing out the pattern of anti-Israel "ownership" of articles, much of it (as I revealed in this blog), coordinated offsite in violation of Wikipedia rules.

What I call the "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors fought fiercely against Arbcom's taking up the case, gaslighting and producing reams of verbiage and meaningless "data" to prove that the blatant anti-Israel propaganda in the artcles, and the misconduct that produced it, is just a figment of everyone's imagination.

The phony "data" they generated was crucial, as arbcom often takes a nerdy approach and is swayed by "data," no matter how bogus.

The arbcom case drew outside attention as it dragged on for months, especially articles by Aaron Bandler in Jewish Journal, which raised the stakes and made it harder for arbcom to just sweep it all under the rug. 

Revelations about outside coordination, by this blog and Ashley Rindsberg in Piratewire, made it still harder.

In voting to go ahead with the case, the arb "Moneytrees" specifically pointed to the canvassing:

I also want to look at offsite behavior and canvassing, which has been chronic for a while and been difficult to address with our current processes. The scope should be an examination of how to address these offsite issues, and how we can empower admins to act on them.

And now comes this latest development, the Canadian study, just as the case is about to begin.

The study was conducted by Neil Seeman, a Senior Fellow at Massey College. the University of Toronto, and Jeff Ballabon, Senior Counsel for International and Government Affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice. These are serious researchers, which Wikipedia usually hold in higher esteem than journalists. 

In their National Post article, they wrote:

We conducted a comprehensive analysis of Wikipedia’s structural bias, using as our case study the page about South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Our findings unearthed patterns of systematic bias that can shape and contort public understanding of critical global issues.

Through a detailed examination of over 1,000 page revisions, we identified several key mechanisms through which bias can enter and metastasize inside Wikipedia.

Our analysis identified 27 highly active editors who contributed significantly to the page. These weren’t hobbyist contributors — they averaged over 200,000 edits across Wikipedia, suggesting they’re highly experienced editors with considerable influence over content. The bias expression analysis identified patterns of anti-Israel bias among power-user editors, highlighting how personal viewpoints can seep into supposedly neutral content.

While none of the researchers' findings will come as a surprise to readers of this blog and the other coverage, their work dovetails neatly what I've been documenting sinch March, and what Aaron and Ashley have written about.

Their findings concerning editor behavior are significant because, remember, Arbcom's jurisdiction is confined entirely to that realm:

What’s particularly remarkable is these biases contradict the spirit of a “wiki” — an ethos of bottom-up collaboration and respect expressed toward all its volunteer editors. These biases include: elite theory bias, that is, a preference for academic sources over grassroots knowledge; high-contributor frequency bias (disproportionate influence of frequent editors); citation gaming (strategic use of citations to push particular viewpoints); temporal bias (over-representation of recent events or perspectives); institutional capture systematic bias (from organized editing groups); language complexity bias (use of complex language to obscure bias); and source selectivity bias (selective choice of sources to support particular views).

So there it is, all laid out. The arbcom case won't commence until the end of November, so you can bet that the Wikipedia Flood--and their sponsors and backers--will be minutely examining the Canadian study to rip it to shreds and extract as much blood as they can from the editors who have sought to counter them.

The Flood is tightly organized offsite, experienced and well-established onsite. They've achieved their objective since 10/7, spreading poison, turning Wikipedia into a propaganda website, and there's no reason to believe they won't win again, study or no study.

Why? Because Wikipedia belongs to them.

Wikipedia needs to be starved of money and discredited. This new study will go a long way toward achieving the latter objective. 

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.

The Spartacus Factor: How Wikipedia's Pro-Hamas Editors Control Articles

Very few established Wikipedia editors want to be Spartacus.

Recently I received an email from a longtime former Wikipedia editor. I'm taking the liberty of replicating a passage from their email, redacted to ensure their anonymity:

I'm actually a former editor of Wikipedia. . .  After discovering the anti-Israel activity, I had multiple negative encounters with the propagandists you write about, most notably [redacted], and arguing with these people was driving me crazy, plus the fact that they seem to have unlimited time and energy, and the ability to get - and get away with - whatever they want. I realized I was up against an immovable evil, so I left the entire project, for my own sake. I definitely don't have the mental energy to do what you're doing!

Note the text that I've put in italic boldface, as I think it is crucial. 

I thought of that email when I read Ashley Rindsberg's well-researched, exhaustively documented article that just came out in an online journal called the Pirate Wires. Ashley, author of an excellent book on the New York Times, has written other articles about Wikipedia, and it is a superlative website, well worth a subscription. His work on Wikipedia is right up there with Aaron Bandler of the Jewish Journal, who has been all over the story of Wikipedia's gross anti-Israel bias for months.

What made Ashley's article especially valuable is how he delves into and quantifies the techniques used by what I call the Wikipedia Flood—the well-coordinated coterie of anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors who control every single article that has anything to do with Israel, even remotely. 

Opponents of the Flood are overwhelmed, exhausted, and ultimately worn out because the pro-Hamas editors effectively "game" Wikipedia's arbitrarily enforced, often unenforced policies. Ashley points out:

To evade detection, the group works in pairs or trios, an approach that veils them from detection. They also appear to rotate their groupings for the same reason. Likewise, one or more of the group’s editors can come to the aid of another in the case of pushback. In many instances, editing by the group is made to articles focused on historical issues, where a single editor might be patrolling for this kind of abuse, making it easy for two dedicated users to overwhelm or exhaust the lone editor.

Yes, "lone editors" like the one I quoted at the top of this post.

The Flood consists of many editors, but Ashley documents how it comes down to a hard core of 40 experienced editors.  Experienced editors are held in high regard by Wikipedia. When acting in concert, they invariably get their way when they are persistent, motivated, ideologically single-minded and well-organized.

Ashley describes how that works, with charts identifying the editors in questions, all familiar names to readers of this blog.

To skirt [Wikipedia polices], the pro-Palestine group leverages deep Wikipedia know-how to coordinate efforts without raising red flags. They work in small clusters, with only two or three active in the same article at any given time. On their own, many of these edits appear minor, even trivial. But together, their scope is staggering, with two million edits made to more than 10,000 articles, a majority of which are PIA or topically associated. In dozens of cases, the group’s edits account for upwards of 90% of the content on an article, giving them complete control of the topics.

The numbers are indeed staggering:

In August, an analysis of the intensity of editing in PIA between January 2022 and September 2024 found that the top contributor to PIA by number of edits, a user called Selfstudier, made over 15,000 edits in the space in that period. Iskandar323 contributed over 12,000 edits to PIA articles in the same period. Other members of the pro-Palestine group are equally prolific, with top contributors including CarmenEsparzaAmoux (8,353), Makeandtoss (8,074), Nableezy (6,414), Nishidani (5,879), Onceinawhile (4,760) and an admin called Zero0000 (2,561).

. . . . All together, the top 20 editors of this group made over 850,000 edits to more than 10,500 articles, the majority of them in the Palestine-Israel topic area, or topically connected historical articles.

These astonishing numbers quantify why when you see the "talk" pages of article there is either no dissent at all to their "POV-pushing," or when there is dissent it is isolated and ineffective, a case of one editor is up against many. 

That's no accident. As Ashley points out, and as I have documented, they "swarm" over articles due to offsite "canvassing." That is against Wikipedia rules, like everything else they do, but is unenforceable when it takes place offsite.

Sure you can fight them. But that can end your Wikipedia career or get you kicked out of the topic area. By coordinating their actions offsite, the Wikipedia Flood is able to gin up a "consensus" whenever they so desire. Fighting them means that you are against "consensus," which means that you are being "disruptive." Fight too hard, refuse to surrender to the Flood, and you get blocked or banned from the topic area entirely.

It's a numbers game, as I have said over and over again in this blog. 

It's a bit like Spartacus and his small band of slave rebels. Remember what happened to Spartacus? He and his band were overwhelmed by the Roman legions. It made for a great Kirk Douglas movie, but remember how it ends, with everyone crucified on the road to Rome? Every single one dead.

No experienced editor wants to be Spartacus. They like editing Wikipedia. They enjoy it. Maybe there is another area of interest that holds their interest. Maybe they are beekeepers or mainly focused on editing articles about their hobbies or their hometowns. I guarantee you that it is much more satisfying to edit in an area where other editors are pleasant and cooperative than editing in a topic where the other editors would happy if you burned to death in real life.

To avoid that fate, editors drop out of Wikipedia entirely or, more commonly, stop editing in what is known on Wikipedia as the "Palestine/Israel" topic area. 

The same desire to avoid unnecessary conflict, expenditure of energy and fatigue results in the vast majority of Wikipedia's volunteer "administrators" avoiding the subject area—except, in almost all cases, for administrators who back up the Wikipedia Flood. As I've described, one admin, "Vallereee," improperly uses her administrative tools on behalf of the Flood.

That same conflict-avoidance imperative has resulted in the Wikipedia "Arbitration Committee" showing extreme reluctance in tackling the issue. Same reason: they are volunteers, they have other things to do, and life is short.

One "arbcom" case involving the same pro-Hamas editors mentioned in Ashley's article has been dragging on since August without resolution. In fighting that case, the Flood has used the same "swarming" tactics they've used in getting their way throughout Wikipedia.

Read Ashley's article for more. And be sure to follow Aaron Bandler's great work in the Jewish Journal. They are the only journalists who are following this story closely. Hopefully there will be more.