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.

Wikipedia's 'Arbitrators' May Dive Into the Wikipedia Flood (Updated through 9/1)

Please see the bottom of this entry for updates,

Are Wikipedia's legions of anti-Israel editors in danger? 

That question is raised by an "arbitration" case that is currently being ginned up in one of the myriad internal Wikipedia discussion pages. This is its current location. It originated here, in yet another forum. 

I'll quickly cut to the chase and answer the question I just posed: Don't bet on it. It's possible, but more likely either nothing meaningful will happen, or the outcome will be a net positive for the "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors, who are accustomed to gaming the system for their own ends. There's no reason to believe that pattern will end.

What happened was that an anti-Israel editor had sought sanctions against an editor who dared to stem the tide of anti-Israel propaganda, and the usual crew of pro-Hamas editors, led by the anti-Israel enforcer "Nableezy," swarmed in. Usually this would mean sanctions against the editor who antagonized the Wikipedia Flood. After all, the pro-Hamas tools and "POV-pushing" professional propagandists have the numbers to get their way.

But the discussion did not turn out as these things usually do. The pro-Hamas editors overplayed their hand, became abusive and tendentious, and what is known as a "boomerang" occurred. Rather than take sanctions against the pro-Hamas editors, however, the administrators involved in the discussion behaved in cowardly fashion. They referred the matter to what is known on Wikipedia as the "Arbitration Committee." "Arbcom" deals with protracted disputes and long-term editor behavior issues. The discussion now underway is seeking to determine if there will be a full-blown case.

Initially the discussion was surprisingly inhospitable to the pro-Hamas crew, who have not said much on the page as of now (Aug. 20). Some of the editors weighing in have raised points this blog has covered in the past: how pro-Hamas editors use their numbers to get their way, bludgeoning and harassing opposing editors and abusing Wikipedia's processes.

For instance, an editor of long experience named "Number 57," who is rarely seen in the so-called "Israel/Palestine" topic area, said as follows:

I edit around the edge of this topic area, focussing on Israeli politics and civil society, and have had the misfortune over the years to have ended up in disputes with editors pushing both anti-Israel and pro-Israel POV on articles where our paths corss. I very much welcome the suggestion that long-term tag-teaming, POV pushing and the ineffectiveness of current tools to stop this should be looked at. From my nearly 20 years' experience, the main issue has always been that there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Wikipedia to push their POV – anyone can look at their contribution histories and see that their contributions are primarily adding things that make their side look good/the other look bad and deleting information to the contrary; in discussions such as RMs, RfCs or AfDs, their stances are easily predicted based on their editing history. A further issue is that for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions (and in my view the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage).

"Number 57" is an "administrator," a member of the Wikipedia power structure, which gives his comments added weight.

Although this statement is afflicted by "bothsidesism," it still makes two crucial points, which I've emphasized in boldface, that this blog and other critics of Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias have made in the past. The 30/500 restriction, which was instituted at the behest of the rape-denying anti-Israel editor "Huldra," has been especially effective at cementing control of Wikipedia's Israel articles by the pro-Hamas bunch. Editors must have 30 days tenure and have made 500 edits to contribute in the "I/P" area. Wikipedia is supposedly the "encyclopedia anyone can edit," but that principle does not apply to articles controlled by the Wikipedia Flood. When it comes to articles that interest them, Wikipedia is the article they edit and everyone else must submit to their authority.

The pro-Hamas editors are clearly terrified by this case, judging from unhinged rants on the Nableezy user-talk page. The fanatical pro-Hamas editor Nishidani used the occasion to push anti-Zionist polemics. Clearly they are concerned. Could their control of Wikipedia be curbed? Could they be banned from "I/P" or kicked off Wikipedia entirely?

Things are so bad, Nableezy has such power as "boss" of the Wikipedia Flood, that an Israeli editor actually went to him to ask for permission to make an edit! Nableezy graciously granted permission. I understand this is due to an insane "mentorship" arrangement in which the Israeli editor, as a condition for not being topic-banned, must humiliatingly grovel before Wikipedia's number-one Hamas advocate and defer to his wisdom and experience. That is how bad things have become. "Ownership" of articles is prohibited by Wikipedia rules, but the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood.

Positive steps could be taken by Arbcom, but it's very unlikely. Nableezy, Nishidani and the other pro-Hamas editors are experienced operators with a legion of fans and allies. They are the very epitome of what have come to be known on Wikipedia as "unblockables." An essay on the subject  describes the attributes of the "unblockables," one of which is that they have a "fan club" of supporters who have each other's back. That is known in wiki-parlance as "tag-teaming."

Nableezy's "user box"

Even at this early stage, you can already see two of the tactics the pro-Hamas editors are going to bring to bear: gaslighting and word salads. 

Nableezy deployed both rhetorical techniques in a comment on the Arbcom page in which he contended, presumably with a straight face, that "there is this misconception that there are 'pro-Israel' editors vs 'pro-Palestinian' editors, and that is both not true and has never been true." 

Let's reflect on the momentous hypocrisy and dishonesty at work here. This is an editor who has a "user box" on his personal Wikipedia page proclaiming that he "supports the right of all individual groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties." which is a wordy way of saying "terrorism by Hamas and Hezbollah." It is the only user box on his page, and it is in a central position in the middle.

Most Wikipedia editors have user boxes describing their location, their interests, their time on Wikipedia and other innocuous things. Nableezy's proclaims his advocacy of suicide bombings, rape, abductions and murder by the terrorists whose cause he advances in Wikipedia. But no, he's not a partisan! He's not taking sides when he fights to slant articles against Israel and force out editors who conflict with him. Nableezy and his pals are "defenders of the Wiki" while the editors trying to stop them are violating policies A, B, C, X, Y and Z. 

Editors are not pro- or anti-Israel, they are pro- or anti-Wikipedia. That is the stance the pro-Hamas editors will be taking. It has worked in the past and there's no reason to doubt that it will again.