Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors Decree: The 'Zionism' Article Is 'Neutral'

The 'neutrality is disputed' tag was removed 25 minutes later. Note the anti-Zionist phraseology.

The Wikipedia article on Zionism has prompted widespread outrage for portraying the movement for Jewish self-determination as a "settler colonialist" project. I've written four posts, beginning with this one, documenting how the article was peppered with anti-Zionist propaganda, and the media has been all over the story.

Certainly to say that this widely reviled article's neutrality is not disputed would be delusional. But in the fantasy land of Wikipedia, in which every article related to Israel is controlled by a "flood" of Israel-haters and antisemites, reality doesn't matter. 

Proof of that can be found in a fight underway in the "talk" or discussion page of the Zionism article. An effort to "tag" the article for possible—I repeat, only possible—lack of neutrality, in violation of a core Wikipedia policy, has been repeatedly thwarted by anti-Zionist editors. Working with an anti-Israel administrator, and organized offsite, the anti-Zionist editors have crushed efforts to remove bias from the article.

The article was first tagged Sept. 29 as part of a broader dispute over the neutrality of the article, especially its lead section. A more recent effort by another editor to tag the article was stymied by the same coterie of editors. As usual, that was followed by talk. Lots of talk, day after day of browbeating and bullying by anti-Israel editors, aimed not to find "consensus" but to wear down the "enemy."

A permalink to the talk page in its current state, showing the various "discussions," can be found here.

The fact that so much energy would be devoted to preventing the insertion of a routine, commonplace "maintenance" tag is emblematic of the power and fanaticism of anti-Israeli editors. 

Such tags have a simple purpose: to alert editors to possible article issues, in this case, lack of neutrality. To quote the instructions for use of the neutrality tag, it is placed on articles that are "reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view." It is extremely common, and is present on some 7,300 articles, as the instructions point out. 

But when editors hostile to the subject of an article control that article, questioning its neutrality is never "reasonable." Doing so can be lethal when an administrator is part of the mob, as is the case here.

The following post by "Stephan rosie," a new recruit to the anti-Zionist "Wikipedia Flood" who has already compiled an impressive block record, summed up the mentality at work here. 

All zionism sub-ideologies agree on the core principles of zionism itself, such as the colonization of a land that is inhabited by other pre-dominantly non-jewish population to establish a jewish majority. This is the essence of the zionist project regardless of which kind of zionism sub-ideology you are talking about as stated in reliable sources. the article lead is talking about the core principle of zionism as a whole regardless of the minor differences as between political zionism vs socialist zionism, such differences is to be detailed in the article body, not the lead. Stephan rostie (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that "Zionism" is spelled in the lower case to showcase his contempt.

To aid the effort to keep that tag off the page, the anti-Israel editor "Valereee," an administrator who cheerfully puts her "tools" at the disposal of her fellow anti-Zionists, weighed into the fray by quoting an essay she selected to support her comrades in the fight against the neutrality tag. 

A few hours later, taking off her "editor" hat and putting on her "administrator" hat, she restricted editing of the Zionism article. It was not the first nor last time she has acted as an administrator in articles on Israel, despite her record of anti-Israel editing.

How can Wikipedia tolerate that? Well, theoretically it doesn't. The rules state that administrators are free to contribute to any article or subject area, but they can't do that and use her "tools" to enforce the rules in that area. But as I've stated many times before, the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood and its allies, especially administrators.

Even though Valereee created and largely wrote an anti-Israel article on the politicization of food in the Middle East, she insisted that she was "uninvolved" in the subject area. Backed by the Wikipedia Flood and by her fellow administrators (who tend to back each other up no matter what), she successfully argued that she should continue to wear both hats in articles relating to Israel, her anti-Israel editing notwithstanding. 

With anti-Zionist editors calling the shots, it's not surprising that they view the Zionism article as "neutral" and any effort to doubt its neutrality as heresy. And with anti-Zionist administrators like "Valleree" on their side, correcting the site's pervasive anti-Israel hate can be deeply inadvisable if you want to keep your editing privileges. 

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, in a post describing a bizarre action by the anti-Israel administrator "Doug Weller," Wikipedia administrators don't have to play by the rules. They set the rules as they go along. So if an anti-Israel administrator like "Vallerree" or "Doug Weller" bars you from articles on Israel or tosses you off Wikipedia altogether, there's not much you can do about it. Administrator actions can be and are reversed—but only for members of the Wikipedia Flood.

Wikipedia Administrators: Toe the Anti-Zionist Line or Be Blocked

'MaskedSinger' is threatened with serious consequences if he continues to do----what?

 The "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors could not control articles without the active cooperation of the site's volunteer "administrators," who hold great power over lesser editors. Many of them are anti-Zionist themselves, and use their "tools" with greater impact than dozens of lesser editors.

Administrators can deny you access to the site entirely. They can ban you from topic areas, including everything related to Israel. They are subject to limited oversight and are only rarely removed, no matter how biased or incompetent they may be.

A good example just arose on Sept. 22, when the editor "MaskedSinger" was blocked for two months by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller." As far as I know (please comment or email me if I missed something), no one actually complained about this editor. "Doug Weller" took it upon himself to do this. It is almost unheard-of for anti-Zionist editors to be throttled out of the blue in this manner, and usually they withstand sustained complaints with nothing happening to them.

This user's block was so gratuitous, so outwardly unfair, that it should have been immediately reversed but it was not. This entire process, including the selective and harsh punishment, serves as a warning (intentionally, I believe) to editors coming to the Zionism and other articles to counter anti-Zionist editors: toe the anti-Zionist line or be blocked.

"MaskedSinger" has been active in the Zionism article, which has been rewritten as an anti-Zionist polemic.  As I explained in a previous blog item, this user has pointed out the historical roots of Zionism dating back to antiquity. He has done so on the "talk" or discussion page of the article. A review of the past 1000 edits of the article shows that he has not edited this article for at least the past four years! (My apologies for stating in a previous version of this post that he edited the article. He did not. He just talked about it.)

Did his merely talking about that article prompt this block? What was wrong with what he said on the discussion page? Or was "Doug Weller" just angry about all the negative outside attention this article has received and taking it out on "MaskedSinger"? 

It's plain that his motive was the latter. I say that because "Doug Weller" was laughingly vague, and did not even attempt to be fair or even say with any specificity why he was blocking him. "And if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block," "Doug Weller" warned. 

If what continues after he is blocked? He didn't say. In fact, no grounds were stated, but the block record says, without elaboration, "lack of good faith, personal attacks, persistent disruption." That of course can be said about every single anti-Israel editor. Note that the block record refers to the discussion page ("Talk:Zionism") as well as the article proper, when as I mentioned he has not edited the article.

As typically happens in such situations, other admis backed up "Doug Weller" without a second thought. His lack of providing an explanation was fine with them. "Doug will probably explain further when he's at leisure to," said the veteran administrator "Bishonen."

An appeal of the block was denied by another administrator, "PhilKnight," and the reason was illuminating: "Could you say if unblocked what you would do? Would you continue to argue the bible can be used as a historical source? I think you need a break from that." 

"MaskedSinger" was not in fact advocating use of the Bible as a "historical source" but as background for explaining the historical roots of Zionism. 

This is a good example of how Wikipedia administrators, due to their own ideological blinders (Doug Weller), bureaucrat rigidity (Bishonen) and simple incompetence ("PhilKnight") stack the deck for the Wikipedia Flood.

Above all it serves as a warning to Wikipedia editors everywhere if they are thinking of countering anti-Zionist editors and their allies in the Wikipedia leadership. Administrators will be watching you. Some of them are themselves anti-Zionist. Their buddies will back them up. 

They will block you or ban you from the topic area for any reason or no reason at all. They will do this even if you haven't actually edited an article and are just talking about it on the discussion page. They will back each other up no matter how wrong they are. They will not even pretend to be fair. 

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.