How Pro-Hamas Operatives Collaborate to Rig Wikipedia (Updated)

"For anyone who wants to learn how to help the Palestinian cause using Wikipedia"

Updated 9/2/24 with further details on activities of pro-Hamas coordinator "Ïvana"; correcting error re subpage  

To achieve their goal of turning Wikipedia into a pro-Hamas propaganda site, Wikipedia's anti-Israel editors have to rig Wikipedia's processes. To rig Wikipedia's processes, they need numbers. They need organization. They need coordination. Achieving these goals must be effectuated offsite. Today I explore one of the many ways they do this.

On Wikipedia itself, they pose as dedicated, rule-enforcing, vandal-fighting, sockpuppet-exposing Wikipedia loyalists who want only to "improve the project." The mask comes off outside Wikipedia, where they perform the hard work of organizing, recruiting, and training newcomers via online seminars, like the regular Wednesday seminar advertised on Discord at the top of this page. 

This blog will mainly focus on the Discord effort, which is a kind of "war room" for the Wikipedia Flood. I will say at the outset that this is not a secret page. Subterfuge was not required to gain access to the Discord discussion group. Just ask. You'll get in. It was mentioned in this Jewish Insider article, resulting in zero consequences. It is not even mentioned in the ongoing "Arbitration Committee" case that I've written about. 

Going outside of Wikipedia in this manner is known as "stealth canvassing" that is strictly prohibited by the rules. But as this blog has documented, the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood. 

Pro-Hamas editors coordinate their efforts in various ways, mainly by emails among the participants. Thus the Discord effort is just one of various mechanisms in operation today. There is no doubt whatsoever that there are other off-wiki canvassing sites; the JI article also mentions exchanges on Telegram. The Discord channel was established in February 2024 and is part of “Tech for Palestine,” whose website can be found here. They describe themselves as "a loose coalition of 5,000+ founders, engineers, product marketers, community builders, investors, and other tech folks working towards Palestinian freedom."  

That's how they describe themselves, but there is nothing subtle about the Discord group. It is fiercely pro-Hamas, anti-Zionist and antisemitic. In the meeting notice at the top of this blog entry, note that the watermelon Hamas symbol is used denote "likes." The inverted red triangle, used by Hamas supporters to target Jews, and recently banned by Germany, is also used by this "peace and justice" group.

The Tech for Palestine Discord channel has about 8,000 members at present. Its Wikipedia Collaboration group describes itself as an instrument of the Gaza war for the elimination of Israel. Or as they put it, "fighting on the Wikipedia front the information battle for truth, peace, and justice."

"Welcome to Wikipedia Collaboration!"

Here's a close-up of the welcome message:

"Fighting on the Wikipedia front"

As noted in the welcome message, "Office Hours" are held weekly to coordinate their propaganda efforts, indoctrinate newcomers and train them for battle. A notice for a July event is at the top of this blog entry. The User:Samisawtak page referred to in the welcome announcement can be found here. Even though it was deleted at the end of July at the Samisawtak's request, it appears on Wikipedia here, showing as it appeared earlier that month. I cannot explain why this remained even though the page itself was deleted.

This blatant effort on Wikipedia to coordinate with an offsite canvassing effort has gone unnoticed even though the Discord offsite war room is actually mentioned multiple times on the "to do" list:

Here it calls the troops to remove "alleged" from a reference to "Palestinian genocide": 

In the Discord collaboration group itself, individual articles are targeted for a once-over by the pro-Hamas mob. In April, the coordinator, "Samer," announced that they have 78 articles to twist into Hamas propaganda.

The "resident expert" aiding newbies in their article-slanting is a dedicated pro-Hamas editor named "Ïvana," who is also mentioned in the Samisawtak on-wiki page. 

("Ïvana" changed her user name to "Movndshrovd" after this blog appeared, and then changed it back to "Ïvana" for some reason known only to them.) The person behind "Ïvana" almost certainly created it as a "sleeper sockpuppet" account, as the "Ïvana" account was created in December 2018 and then used only twice until May 2020, probably after other accounts were discovered and deleted. Their edit history shows that their original user name was "Ivanacccp." Why "cccp," Cyrillic for "USSR," was part of her original user name is anyone's guess. Could be nothing or it could explain their hatred of Israel.

In addition to the "to do list" above "Samisawtak" has a user subpage on Wikipedia devoted to the Discord "Wiki-collaboration effort." My apologies for previously reporting that Ïvana was maintaining this page. It was actually "Samisawtak," assuming they are different people. 

Here is how their Wikipedia subpage now appears. Props to the commenter to this blog who brought this to my attention. If "Samisawtak" has the page deleted, an archived version can be found here.

"Samisawtak" uses a Wikipedia page to flog the Discord offsite coordination effort

Just below, "Samisawtak" uses their Wikipedia platform to instruct the pro-Hamas edit-warriors to "go on https://discord.com/channels/1186702814341234740/1202698460684353537 and tell us which article/topic you'd like to start working on."

  "Ïvana"/"Movndshrovd" instructs her edit warriors to report their efforts to Discord

Further down on the page, "Samisawtak" provides helpful information on the offsite coordination effort.

"Samisawtak" then gives new recruits a helpful tip on how to inflate their edit count, so that they can meet the 30-day, 500-edit requirement for editing in the "Israel/Palestine" topic area. This is known on Wikipedia as "gaming the system," also against the rules but allowed for pro-Hamas editors.

"Samisawtak" goes on to provide subject areas to be covered in the Discord training sessions for pro-Hamas edit warriors.

Don't for a second believe that the Wiki-powers don't know about all this. They know that coordination with Discord is taking place on Wikipedia, using Wikipedia resources and their servers. As I mentioned earlier, the Discord operation was mentioned in this Jewish Insider article.  If Wikipedia's administrators and arbitrators don't know that offsite coordination of pro-Hamas content, it's because they don't want to know.

With help from Ïvana, Samer and the others, the Wikipedia Flood is directed on Discord into specific Wikipedia articles that need to be coaxed into propaganda pieces.  

Here editors are encouraged to brand the widespread Hamas rapes on Oct. 7 as a "hoax," citing an X post by the virulently antisemitic account "Zei_Squirrel," who regularly quoted in this group.

Here "Ïvana" points her people in the direction of an Administrators Noticeboard discussion in which "zionists [are] trying to force another editor to remove pro-palestinian/pro-resistance quotes from their profile." 

She was referring to this discussion, now archived, in which an editor complained about a pro-Hamas user quoting from the Hamas terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar on his user page, in blatant violation of Wikipedia rules, which don't allow user pages to be used for political "soapboxing." 

The AN discussion was flooded by pro-Hamas operatives, summoned to the page by "Ïvana," and ended with a pro-Hamas editor terminating the discussion without penalizing the pro-Hamas editor, not even giving him a warning. Involved editors are not supposed to terminate discussions, but of course the rules don't apply to pro-Hamas editors.  

Here Samer speaks of assembling a "blitz team" for an article on the Nuseirat hostage rescue operation, which the pro-Hamas mob had sought to portray as a "massacre." He cites a previous "blitz team" used for another article, on Lily Greenberg Call, and promises to bring it up at the June "office hours" conclave. (According to the Call article's edit history, the Call Wikipedia article, created by the so-called "expert" Ïvana, had to be initially expunged because it was cribbed from The Guardian.) It's not clear exactly what the "blitz team" did, other than plagiarize.

And so it goes, on and on and on. Samer, who evidently edits Wikipedia under an undisclosed user name, is starting up something he calls "Books for Palestine." He wants articles on books that promote the Hamas cause.

Elsewhere there is talk of linking up with efforts on non-English speaking Wikipedia projects and the Internet Movie Database, which takes contributions from the public. But the English-language Wikipedia is their main effort.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

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.

Wikipedia 'Talk' Pages Are Rigged Against Israel

The Jewish Journal has come out with an excellent article describing in copious detail how Wikipedia editors threw the "rule book" out the window, disregarding all of their so-called "policies," in naming an article on allegations of "genocide" by Israel.  It describes how anti-Israel editors make a mockery of fairness and common sense, applying a blatant double standard in articles relating to Israel.

It describes the institutional antisemitism that besets Wikipedia. While not stated explicitly, the Jewish Journal article proves an essential point: 

Talk pages on Wikipedia that relate to Israel, all the forums and so forth that make determinations, are strictly pro forma. They are ritualistic. They serve no purpose other than to ratify the point of view of mobs of anti-Israel editors. They are not forums for open discussion and debate, but are bureaucratic procedures that are used to ratify predetermined outcomes.

Strength of argument, reason, and so on, are supposed to determine outcome but they do not. The process is rigged. The outcome is determined by the numbers of anti-Israel editors who can be brought to bear in discussions, not by the strength of arguments. 

They "flood" discussions, coordinating their efforts through off-Wikipedia communications. Some are full-time anti-Israel propaganda operatives. One of them, the infamous anti-Israel enforcer Nableezy, advocates for terrorism on his "user page" and is believed to be an employee of the pro-Hamas Electronic Intifada online organ.

Pro-Israel editors who are suckered into "talk page" discussions find themselves involved in endless, circular, repetitious bad-faith arguments by pro-Hamas operatives who are there to push their "POV" and are not subject to persuasion. They have the numbers to win, they know it, and they relish baiting "the enemy." 

One of the lies you see on Wikipedia is that discussions are not "votes." That is bullshit. It is a numbers game. Anti-Israel editors swarm discussions, to harangue and bully and harass and berate. They win on numbers. In the rare instances when they don't win on numbers, they start all over again a short time later, even though that's against the rules. But the rules are not enforced against them on Wikipedia. Or they swarm "appeals" processes and flood the talk pages of administrators who act against their wishes. They just push and push until they get their way.

Everything I've described above is the reason the ADL was shafted in the "reliable sources" discussion boards. The ADL has responded by ignoring Wikipedia's processes and gone straight to the ruling Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation has told the ADL to drop dead. In response, the ADL needs to inflict pain. It needs to act against the WMF's nonprofit status and its funding. It needs to make Wikipedia's reputation toxic, because it is toxic. 

As I mentioned in a previous blog, pro-Israel editors need to start a flood of their own. But meanwhile the WMF needs to feel pain. If they feel enough pain, they will act to protect their jobs and their bloated salaries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

The Only Way to Fight the Wikipedia Flood

You can fight the flood.

The "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors claimed an important target recently, the Anti-Defamation League of the Bnai Brith. I won't belabor the point as it has been amply publicized, but I do want to amplify some points I've made in the past about how to fight the Flood. There is only one way, and the ADL situation shows why that is so.

The ADL responded for a time with fire and brimstone, appearing on MSNBC and other news outlets. The US Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation expressing "concern and dismay with Wikipedia’s attack on ADL’s reliability on the topic of antisemitism and other issues of central concern to the Jewish community."

The Wikimedia Foundation responded by telling the ADL and the Foundation to drop dead. It did so politely, by hiding behind Wikipedia policies that it knows perfectly well are fictitious:

 In a response to an inquiry from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the foundation did not address the content of the letter, but appeared to reject its very premise. 

“Unfortunately, this letter represents a misunderstanding of the situation and how Wikipedia works,” Maggie Dennis, vice president of community resilience and sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation, said in an email. ”Firstly, it’s important to note that the letter was addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; neither the Board or the Foundation make content decisions on Wikipedia. A community of volunteers makes these decisions subject to Wikipedia’s terms of use.”

Note what I put in boldface. What the Foundation failed to point out, because it would upend its entire argument, is that "community" on pages concerning the Arab-Israel conflict can be defined as "the quantity the anti-Israel editors who can be rounded up at any given time."

So how to counter this? There are ways other than what I'm about to suggest, such as pressure on the Foundation, cutting off donations, lawsuits, so on, but the simplest and most effective way is to do what the anti-Israel editors. Create a flood. Pro-Israel editors need to volunteer for Wikipedia and contribute. It's that simple. 

This will require work. Remember that to contribute in the subject area one must be "extended confirmed." That means that you mut have at least 500 edits and an account age of 30 days or more.

So create an account and edit, following these principles:

• Don't pad your edits. While any edit you perform counts toward the 500, don't "game the system" by editing in trivial fashion (like changing a comma to a semicolon over and over again). Become a genuine contributor. Edit in areas outside what they call "Israel/Palestine" subject matter. Edit on anything that interests you outside that area. Your hobbies, your areas of academic interest, anything. These should be genuine contributions, showing interest in areas other than I/P.  

• Learn the ropes. Wikipedia has multiple, conflicting rules and processes. Learn them. 

• Don't rush to edit on I/P.  Don't start editing on the Gaza War when you have 501 contributions and 30.5 days on Wikipedia. Take your time. Remember that new editors in the topic area are put under a microscope. Hostile anti-Israel editors and administrators will scour your contributions and ban you for "gaming the system" if you suddenly switch form writing about calculus to Hamas atrocities. 

• Don't stop editing on non-I/P subjects. If you do, you will be treated with suspicion and hostility as a "special purpose account" and it will be said that you are not there to "improve the project." "Project" is Wikipedia-speak for "Wikipedia."

• Be an asset. Improve articles in non-I/P areas. Introduce sources that were not previously used.

That should get you started. Now, once you've established yourself as a constructive new editor, this is how you should enter the I/P maelstrom after you have a lot more than 500 edits and 30 days under your belt, and after you've been making great contributions in other areas:

• Do it gingerly. Concentrate on one article or discussion. Don't wade into fifteen articles and discussions. Take it slow.

• Be nice. Remember what I said about learning the ropes? By now you have. Remember to be civil even if it hurts. If other editors are not civil there is nothing you can do about it. Don't be provoked. Remember to be civil everywhere. In discussions, edit summaries. Remember that anything you do that isn't civil (or is civil for that matter) can will be used against you by the pro-Hamas crowd.

• Don't complain. If you're not treated properly, don't go rushing to "Arbitration enforcement" and other such "drama boards" that theoretically are supposed to deal with editor misbehavior. They can be turned against you due to what is known as the "boomerang," which happens on a whim sometimes, if the Flood can pile on and accuse you of being a bad actor.

• Keep a record of misconduct by others. When others are uncivil or otherwise violate Wikipedia rules, be sure you have a record of it so you can use it against them.

• Don't even think of sockpuppeting. Wikipedia is alert to editors creating phony accounts. Create one. Create more and you will be discovered. Don't think you can get away with it.

• Don't be overtly partisan. Watch your language. Act neutral. Pretend that you don't have strong feelings. Don't give vent to your feelings about Hamas, Sinwar, etc.  If you do, you will be topic-banned. Anti-Israel editors will be warned for making such comments. You will be sanctioned. 

•  Be conscious of the double standard. Pro-Israel editors are treated far more harshly than anti-Israel editors in any given set of circumstances. That's why it is important to obey the rules scrupulously and keep a record of misconduct by others. 

• Don't be dragged into long, repetitive discussions. Anti-Israel editors do that to wear out the other side. Make your point and do something else. That is what experienced editors do. Newbies get sucked into ridiculous, circular arguments.

Now this doesn't mean that you should be a "boy scout." You can bet the pro-Hamas editors aren't. They are almost certainly coordinating their efforts privately via email. You should too.  

This is known as "canvassing," which is contrary to Wikipedia rules, so be sure that you do so with people you know personally in "real life." Do not communicate with other editors using the Wikipedia email system. While the contents of your emails supposedly can't be read, a record is kept of who you are emailing through the system. That is none of their business.

This is not an exhaustive list of dos and don'ts, but it should be enough to get you started. I will be adding to this from time to time. Feel free to comment with questions and suggestions of your own.

Lastly I have a suggestion for the ADL. You have formidable research capabilities. Use them to help pro-Israel editors stem the Wikipedia Flood. Have your researchers produce sources for use in contentious articles and make them publicly available.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

It's Not Just Israel

This blog is devoted to Wikipedia's war against Israel, but Israel is not the only victim of rampant "POV-pushing" that is theoretically outlawed by Wiki rules, but which runs rampant. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger addressed the issue in 2021 in an interview on Lockdown entitled "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created."

On Wikipedia’s Left-wing bias:

You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream centre-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia.

Exactly. Sources! That's what it's all about. Al Jazeera is used copiously throughout Wikipedia even though it is Qatari state media and a Hamas mouthpiece.

How Wikipedia entries are distorted: 

There are companies like Wiki PR, where paid writers and editors will go in and change articles. Maybe there’s some way to make such a system work, but not if the players who are involved and who are being paid are not identified by name — they actually are supposed to be identified by name and say ‘we represent this firm’ if they are officially registered with some sort of Wikipedia editing firm. But they don’t have to do that.

There's a similar but worse problem with Israel. Paid anti-Israel hacks are supplemented by an army of anti-Israel volunteers and a hostile "administration." Due to anonymity, it is impossible to distinguish between dedicated amateurs and professional propagandists. All we can do is surmise.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

'Calls For the Destruction of Israel'

Some of the most brazen anti-Israel Wikipedia activists have their underwear in a twist over the article entitled "Calls for the destruction of Israel." 

It's hilarious unless you realize that these people run Wikipedia: anti-Israel demagogues who are intent on twisting every article against Israel, and removing those that put Israel's enemies in a negative light. Naturally they hate it.

An effort to delete this article failed in January. Now the article is tagged for "neutrality" and a discussion is underway on how it fails to fall in line with the anti-Israel slant of the rest of Wikipedia.  Oh no! The article failed to use Journal of Palestine Studies! or Jewish Currents or any number of other anti-Israel cesspools.

A typical comment from the anti-Israel activist "Nishidani": 

Well, it's a piece of sloppy hackwork, worst of all, overlapping with the other two articles without contributing anythingt but confusion. Whatever is salvageable (I.e. whatever survives direct scrutiny of the sources paraphrased) should be moved to Legitimacy or anti-Zionism. 

The pro-Hamas brigade has arrived! Expect the article to get a going-over by the usual suspects. Watch this space.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

Journalist Targeted for Character Assassination by Wikipedia

Anat Schwartz was one of three contributors to the New York Times article Screams Without Words, a thoughtful and thorough account of the Hamas use of rape as a weapon of war. It received wide publicity, and its lead writer was the Pulitzer Prize-winner Jeffrey Gettleman.  

Wikipedia's swarms of anti-Israel activist-editors hate Screams Without Words, because it impedes their efforts to whitewash Hamas. Every single reference to Screams Without Words on Wikipedia is designed to discredit it, using anti-Israel sources for that purpose.

As part of their campaign against Screams Without Words, they have used Wikipedia to smear Schwartz.

In addition to creating an article on "Screams" for the sole purpose of attacking it, an article was created on Schwartz for the sole purpose of attacking her. 

The article was created in late February, two months after Screams Without Words appeared, as a translation of an innocuous article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Schwartz got her article before the Wiki article on "Screams" was created. That's how anxious they were to discredit and punish her. She was clearly viewed as a weak link in the authorship chain.

Here is how the Hebrew version appeared at the time. There is a brief, innocuous reference to Screams Without Words. It has changed little since then.

The English Wikipedia article (here is how it initially appeared) cut short the description of her long career in the Hebrew article. Over half of the English Wikipedia article was an attack on her work on Screams Without Words, saying the "Screams" article

reportedly caused a "furious internal debate" about the strength of its reporting. [5] In February 2024, analysis of Schwartz' social media activity found that she had liked posts calling Palestinians 'human animals' and advocating to "turn Gaza into a slaughterhouse," leading to allegations of bias and violations of editorial policies.[6]

Nowhere does it point out that the Times has stood by the article, calling it "rigorously reported, sourced and edited" and sent an email to The Intercept seeking corrections.  

Footnotes 6&7 in the passage quoted above go to The Intercept, a grossly anti-Israel publication, and Mondoweiss, a blog that is an apologist for Hamas. As a self-published blog, Mondoweiss is not supposed to be used for biographies. But Wikipedia's activist-editors regularly disregard that rule, and fight fiercely against editors seeking to enforce the rules.

Since it was created, the Schwartz article has been made longer and worse. As it appears today, it still relies on Mondoweiss and The Intercept, and now Al Jazeera as well. There is still, after all these months, nothing on how the Times says it stands by the story.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

World Jewish Congress on Wikipedia's Anti-Israel Bias

Logo of the Arabic Wikipedia

On March 19th, the World Jewish Congress released a report on anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia. The statement announcing the report can be found here and the report itself is here.

The statement introducing the report states as follows:

In the aftermath of October 7, the English-language version of Wikipedia contains an anti-Israel bias that perpetuates disinformation and promotes negative stereotypes, according to a World Jewish Congress report issued today on the sidelines of the ongoing session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The bias takes myriad forms, appearing in terminology, framing and lack of context, one-sided sources and critical omissions, among other occurrences, in articles on the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, according to the WJC report. 

For instance, biased articles may promote the demonization or delegitimization of Israel; avoid mentioning terrorism and other tangible threats faced by Israel; and lack critical Israeli voices, researchers and facts that may support Israel's rationale for its policies, the report states. 

It points out things that are not generally known, such as that the Arabic-language Wikipedia is actively pro-Hamas and has abandoned the so-called "neutral point of view" policy supposedly required of all Wikimedia Foundation projects. The Foundation has done nothing about it.

In the English Wikipedia, the problems are outlined as follows:

Content Bias: This refers to the presentation of the war and the use of terminology and references regarding Hamas and Israel that may demonstrate bias. 

Deletion Attacks and Tendentious Deletion Attempts: This involves surprise deletion attacks or efforts to remove articles related to Israel. 

Editing Restrictions: Certain procedures, such as limiting editing access for users with less than 500 edits and less of 30 days seniority, may hinder the democratic nature of the site, particularly concerning war-related entries; 

Selective Enforcement: System administrators may exhibit biased behavior by inconsistently applying rules, especially in cases involving Israelis or those not supporting a “so-called” pro-Palestinian stance; 

Anti-Israeli Editors: Users have reported instances of aggressive behavior from editors with anti-Israeli views, leading to attempts to block Israeli contributors; and 

Biased Sources: Wikipedia may frequently rely on sources such as media outlets, journalists, or researchers with clear anti-Zionist perspectives, potentially leading to biased content 

This is a very good outline and covers points that others have observed over the years and which we have raised in this new blog.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

Has Iran Been Manipulating Wikipedia?

 A Times of London article in January (behind paywall; replicated here in The Australian) suggests that an Iranian cyber army may have been manipulating Wikipedia on behalf of Iran.

Wikipedia entries have been changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities and other abuses, The Times has learnt.

The alterations raise concerns that the site is being used to ­manipulate information about the hardline Islamic regime. Details have been changed to discredit dissident groups, and government publications have been presented as impartial sources on the free online encyclopaedia.

In one case key details about mass executions by the regime were removed. The involvement of senior officials in the 1988 death commissions, in which thousands of political prisoners were killed, was also deleted. In a separate ruling, supporters of Vahid Beheshti, an Iranian human rights activist who went on hunger strike in the UK, were thwarted when they tried to set up a Wikipedia page. 

Mattie Heaven, Mr Beheshti’s wife, said four attempts were made to set up a page because there was so much online misinformation about her husband, who continues to put pressure on the British government to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organisation. Ms Heaven said the text was repeatedly ­removed so the page could not function. “We believed it was the Iranian cyber army,” she said.

Today, Wikipedia's so-called "Arbitration Committee" was asked by a throwaway account to open a case that would expose the editors involved to possible penalties. 

Look at the editors mentioned.  

• Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ghazaalch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MarioGom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With the apparent exception of MarioGom, every single one is an active edit-warrior activist, pushing the Hamas agenda in articles on Israel and the Gaza conflict.

If Iran is behind these accounts, then Iran is behind much of the pro-Hamas editing on Wikipedia.

Arbcom only got the request today and hasn't decided if it will take the case. 

The prognosis does not look good. This request was by a newly created account, and not by an experienced user who might have more clout. Another throwaway account previously raised the issue at a noticeboard on Feb. 6. It was quickly squelched without explanation by User:Bbb23, an administrator. Wikipedia makes up its rules as it goes along, so "Arbcom" can duck or take up the issue using any pretext it chooses.

A veteran Wikipedia user opines as follows:

Arbitration has always been a last resort for the resolution of disputes that cannot be settled in any other way. The filing of Requests for Arbitration by what appear to be new accounts established for the purpose of filing requests for arbitration does not appear to illustrate that all previous methods of dispute resolution, or any methods of dispute resolution, have been exhausted. (The global edit history shows that the filer is a new account, not an account from another language Wikipedia.) The list of previous steps in dispute resolution says that the filing party (the new account) contacted the WMF, which is a different last resort for the resolution of disputes. There is no evidence of discussion at any English Wikipedia forum. The evidence of a problem is that an article has been published by a reliable source, The Times (of London), apparently stating that there is being systematic removal of reports of human rights violations by the Iranian government. I have not read the details of the report because it is paywalled. There has not been an attempt to discuss the report. If there had been a serious attempt to discuss the report, an inquiry similar to the May 2023 case on distortion of coverage of the Jews in Poland in World War Two might be in order. There has not been such an attempt, and such a case is not in order. This filing is frivolous.

ArbCom should decline this case request, and remind the filer that premature filings are considered vexatious, but should be ready to consider an inquiry into distortion of Wikipedia coverage if there has been real inconclusive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

First he says the filing is not frivolous ("The evidence of a problem is that an article has been published by a reliable source") and then he says "This filing is frivolous." 

This is the kind of double-talk that editors face when they try to counter the army of pro-Hamas editors. The effort to counter Iranian influence stands a good chance of dying due to sheer indifference.

Postscript: The case was quickly swept under the rug on bureaucratic grounds. An "arbitrator" explained:  "It exceeded the limit of 500 words and did not describe actual prior dispute resolution attempts. Also, concerns have been voiced about your account being a throwaway account used only for filing the request." 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

Wikipedia Rape Denier: Naama Levy Was 'Having a Period'

A photograph of 19-year-old Naama Levy is one of the iconic images of the brutal Hamas assault on Israel on October 7, 2023. She is shown being dragged into a truck by a Hamas terrorist, her arms tied behind her back, her ankles cut, blood dripping from her crotch.

The photograph of the tormented Naama has come to symbolize the fate of the female hostages, who have been subjected to sexual assault in the Hamas tunnels.

One of the most prolific anti-Israel activists molding content on Wikipedia believes otherwise. A self-identified woman who goes by the handle "Huldra," said as follows in an article discussion page on March 5:

To me, as a cis-woman, it was a proof, eh, an indication that the woman had her period, and had no opportunity to change her tampon/pad.

She goes on to say that "There has just been so many lies told about Oct. 7."

This disgusting, offensive comment is typical of the Oct. 7 atrocity denial that is prevalent on Wikipedia article discussion pages.

"Huldra" was profiled in 2019 as being a tireless anti-Israel editor:

Huldra’s dedicated passion is one that is slowly and dangerously undermining the factual history of Israel on Wikipedia by creating false documentation that shows nearly 400 Arab villages were allegedly depopulated by Jews and Israel. Last, but not least, Huldra is nearly singularly responsible for enacting the 30/500 policy that limits ALL people from editing anywhere in the Arab-Israeli topic area unless they have achieved 30 days and 500 edits on Wikipedia.

There is a brief Wikipedia article on Naama Levy, created on March 8th. It will be interesting to see how it fares if it is subjected to the usual pro-Hamas assault.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me