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. 

'Zionism Has Ancient Jewish Roots? Who Cares?' Say Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors (Updated, 9/23)

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia editors shrug off Zionism's ancient roots

If you want to understand how completely broken Wikipedia is for anything related to Israel—how slanted, how fallacious, how downright delusional—look at the discussion currently underway on the "talk" or discussion page of the Zionism article, which has been twisted into anti-Zionist propaganda by anti-Zionist editors.

It's a matter of historical fact that Zionism is embedded in Jewish texts and practice going back to the fall of the Second Temple. But the anti-Zionist editors who control the Zionism article don't care about history. They care only about their agenda, which is to use Wikipedia as a weapon in their fight against Israel's existence.

An editor named "MaskedSinger" raised one of the numerous falsehoods and distortions in the article, the claim right at the top of the article that Zionism "emerged in Europe in the late 19th Century." 

He wrote:

This is patently untrue. If you want to go back to the start, it began when the Children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt. After the exodus, they were making their way back to Israel. They had to wander in the desert for 40 years but then conquered the land under the leadership of Joshua. Fast forward however many hundred years and they were exiled from the land, but the desire to return was crystalised than and there. Sure, with raging and horrible anti-semitism in Europe in the late 19th century Zionism become more prominent and relevant, but it didn't begin then. By then, the concept was already thousand of years old.

One only has to read Psalm 137 - By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, yea, we wept, When we remembered Zion.

Clearly the origins of Zionism predate the early 19th Century and are not European. They go back a millennia. But the anti-Zionist editors would have none of it. They want to portray Zionism as a European colonial movement. They want that far up in the article and they will fight fiercely to keep it that way.

So the pushback was fierce. A core group of anti-Zionist editors suddenly materialized and immediately began "tag teaming" to push their point, no doubt coordinating their actions offsite. 

"Your sources are the Bible and Wikipedia? Right," sneered the anti-Zionist editor Selfstudier, who recently larded one of his talk-page comments with an antisemitic trope. Actually "MaskedSinger" had simply linked to a Wikipedia article, he had not used it as a source. Misrepresenting what other editors have just said is contrary to Wikipedia rules, but is a common practice of the anti-Zionist contingent.

"My sources are world history," the new editor responded.

Then came the threats. 

When pro-Hamas editors encounter new editors who challenge their control of articles, they resort to threats to have the "enemy" sanctioned by cooperative administrators: "If your sources aren't WP:RS, you're disrupting this page," responded the anti-Zionist editor "Levivich."  "Disruptive" editors are subject to sanctions.

To drive the point home, "Levivich" followed up with an even cruder threat to lower the boom on "MaskedSinger" for daring to challenge their control of the Zionism article: 

"If I wasn't already knee deep in a big SPI draft, I'd be filing at ANI or AE . . . about somebody bludgeoning this talk page claiming the Bible is an RS. At the very least we should all stop engaging with this nonsense." 

"SPI" is a "sockpuppet investigation" draft, meaning he is planning to accuse another editor of using multiple accounts. "ANI" and "AE" are acronyms for disciplinary boards. Lastly, "nonsense" translates to "disagreeing with anti-Zionist editors." 

Nableezy struts his stuff

"This isn’t the world according to the Bible. Or rather the world according to one person on the internet’s understanding of the Bible," said the veteran pro-Hamas editor "Nableezy," noted for proclaiming his support for "armed struggle" (terrorism) on his personal Wikipedia "user" page.

The discussion has droned on since then, with "MaskedSinger" outnumbered and therefore destined to lose—if he's lucky. If he's not lucky, he'll be kicked out of Wikipedia or otherwise sanctioned, as threatened.

"Talk page" discussions deal with "sources" and "policies." They matter for most Wikipedia articles. But for articles on Israel it ultimately comes down to one thing: numbers. Numbers mean control. The anti-Zionist editors have the numbers, the organization and the determination, They decide which sources are "reliable" or not. They determine which "policies" will be obeyed and which will be ignored. 

'Best sources' on Zionism, as determined by an anti-Zionist Wikipedian

Two hours after "MaskedSinger" dared to contradict the anti-Zionist poison in the Zionism article, "Levivich" rushed to create a list of "best sources" top-heavy with anti-Zionist polemics, to ensure that anti-Zionist views dominate the article going forward, and to reinforce the anti-Zionist determination to ignore ancient Jewish texts that provide the very basis for Zionism. He posted them directly below MaskedSinger's post on the Zionism article talk page.

It all comes down to numbers. On any given issue, what matters is which numbers of editors can be scraped together offsite to support or oppose what the anti-Zionist editors want. And what the anti-Zionist editors want is an anti-Zionist Zionism article.

The "origins of Zionism" discussion is still underway at this writing but its outcome is preordained.

UPDATE: "MaskedSinger" was rewarded for his good work on Sept. 22 by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller," who blocked him for two months (permalink). See this blog item.