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.

'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.

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors Fight to Control 'Zionism' Article

Fix the anti-Zionist slant? No way. Reinforce it? Sure!

Ever since my blog item appeared on the Wikipedia Zionism article, there have been complaints on social media about how the article had been transformed into an anti-Zionist polemic. These were picked up by the Jewish-American press, and today it caught the attention of the Israeli media.

Author Hen Mazzig observed on X that the article's disparagement of Ashkenazi Jewish links to the Holy Land mirrors the discredited Khazar theory of Jewish origins. The Zionism article, he said, "isn't just inaccurate, it's downright antisemitic." Wikipedia, he said, "has become a hate site." Congressman Ritchie Torres said on X that "Wikipedia caricatures Zionism" and engaged in a "warped telling of history" by branding Zionists as "colonizers."  

The 'Khazar' theory

Wikipedia advertises itself as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." That is how it sells itself to the donors and NGOs that pour money into its coffers, providing top people at the Wikimedia Foundation with enormous salaries (see Schedule J, here). So naturally, once they became aware of the terrible state the Zionism article was in, a number of people—established editors and newcomers alike—tried to rid the article of its anti-Zionist and antisemitic slant. 

The result is an exhibition of the control that pro-Hamas editors over the Zionism article and others, how Wikipedia's processes are rigged in their favor, and how nearly impossible it is to dislodge them. 

Much of the activity is taking place on the "talk" or discussion page of the article, which now appears like this.

First a long-established editor weighed in with an explanation of how the lead paragraph gave excessive weight to "a particular interpretation of Zionism as a specific form, namely the 19th century through 1930s versions of Zionism," ignoring its future evolution,

Ignoring their points entirely, their argument was dismissed in a one-sentence reply ("I disagree. The thing in itself as described by the best academic sources is the way to go") by the anti-Zionist editor Dan Murphy, an ex-reporter whose peculiar claim to fame (a disgusting, mocking tweet on the ISIS beheading of hostage Steve Sotloff) I described in a previous blog post.

And on it went, on and on and on. It was the beginning of a 4700-word back-and-forth that is still underway at this writing, involving multiple editors. That's not 4700 words over a period of weeks or months. That's 4700 words over one single day. This discussion began only yesterday and it has already stretched into such astonishing length.

That is typical of discussions when the Wikipedia Flood of pro-Hamas editors are involved. They just go on and on and won't let up, pouring on the verbiage in wearisome and repetitive quantities. As I described in a blog post last month, Wikipedia talk pages under the control of anti-Israel editors use such methods to wear down their opponents, using the sheer numbers that they can bring to bear. 

The reaction to the Zionism article's sorry state brought out another asset in the pro-Hamas editors' arsenal: the "extended confirm" rule.

Anti-Zionist editors' control of the articles is enhanced by that rule, which requires that in the "Israel/Palestine" subject area you must have thirty days on Wikipedia and 500 edits in order to edit an article or even discuss the subject on the "talk" page. 

What this means, in a practical sense, that the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is actually an encyclopedia that, in relevant subject ares, is dominated by a handful of pro-Hamas operatives, with the aid of feckless, biased and passive site administrators.

Yes, you can make an "edit request" if you don't meet the "extended confirm" requirement. See how two such requests were handled. They are in the illustration at the top of the page.

First came a request to change anti-Zionist language in the lead paragraph back to where it was before it became anti-Zionist. That was shot down easily. It was "under discussion above" by editors who met the "extended-confirm" rule. That nicety was happily pointed out by one of the anti-Zionist editors.

Then cane a request to reinforce the anti-Zionist language in the lead with a footnote from a book about "settler colonialism." Of course! Consider it done.

The Wikipedia Flood does not like scrutiny. Within the past few hours, the anti-Zionist ex-reporter Murphy complained about the social media and press attention the article had been getting, in a section he sneeringly titled "Bat Signal."  

Murphy's word choice, which he borrowed from the Batman comics, gives an idea of the arrogance and condescension many Wikipedia editors display toward the outside world. They are both hypersensitive to and dismissive of external attention, even though everything they do is visible to the outside world.

Pro-Hamas editors like Murphy do their article-slanting in the open. Every single word that they write is a matter of public record for all to see. This entire blog is an accumulation of what they do and write on one of the world's most trafficked and influential websites. 

So when the pro-Hamas editor "Selfstudier" makes use of an antisemitic slur ("pound of flesh") on a discussion page, it's right there in plain view for everyone to see. One does not require any special access. You just simply have to go on the web and read.

Yet they just can't stand it when anyone holds up a mirror to what they do.