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.

Did you know.... that Wikipedia calls Yahya Sinwar a 'humble' 'politician'?

The Wikipedia article on the 'politician' Yahya Sinwar

Here is the Yahya Sinwar article as it appears at this writing, prior to official confirmation of Sinwar's death. Note that the lead section, which is supposed to summarize all of an article's most important points, buries that he was architect of the Oct. 7 massacres.

The "politician" description was added in this edit on Nov. 1, 2023, and has remained the description of the terrorist mastermind, on the highest-visibility website in the world, ever since.

As far as I can tell, it has never been seriously challenged.

Sinwar was "humble," says Wikipedia

An editor did object to Sinwar being referred to as "humble," but that description of the butcher of Oct. 7 remains in the article.

The article still contains the following text, which reads as if it came from a Hamas dispatch: "Despite his leadership among prisoners, Sinwar remained humble, sharing cooking duties and other chores with junior inmates as well as making knafeh for fellow prisoners, fostering camaraderie."

Did you know.... that Wikipedia Lies About the 1948 Arab Assault on Israel?

The Arab armies did not aim to crush the new State of Israel in 1948

Inaugurating a new feature! 

Just as Wikipedia has a "Did you know?" feature on its main page, this blog will occasionally feature brief items on the work of the many anti-Israel editors, the "Wikipedia Flood," that have turned much of Wikipedia into pro-Hamas propaganda.

Today: 

Did you know that Wikipedia lies about the 1948 Arab-Israel War? That its article on the war says the Arab armies invaded not to crush the new Jewish state and commit genocide, but rather to delicately claim what Arab Palestinians were entitled to under the 1947 U.N. partition plan that they rejected?  

This one I've taken off Twitter/X and a post by @ReinceNiebuhr.

Reince writes:

it really awful what an antisemitic cesspit Wikipedia has become when it comes to israel articles

Here they claim that the Arab states were only invading territories allocated to Arab state (before acknowledging Tel Aviv was the target)

And then tops it off w “Jewish Bribes”

Nominations for future "DYK" blog items will be gratefully appreciated. Just drop me a line at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me. Anonymity guaranteed. 

Wikimedia Official Puts Anti-Israel Poison on Wikipedia's Main Page

Thanks to a Wikimedia Sverige official, Wikipedia accused Israel of a war crime on its main page

Last June, when the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations complained about Wikipedia denigrating the ADL, it was rudely blown off.

Ever wonder why Wikipedia's parent company, the Wikimedia Foundation, treats Jews and Israel with contempt? One clue comes by examining the kind of people who staff the dozens of affiliates, chapters and other offshoots bankrolled by the Foundation. 

John Cummings

In this post we'll take a look at one of them, John Cummings, a Brit who is "Project Manager for International Organisations" at Wikimedia Sverige in Sweden, which describes itself as "the national local chapter of Wikimedia Foundation." 

Wikimedia "chapters" get grants from the Wikimedia Foundation but are legally separate from them. The corporate veil is designed to insulate the Foundation from liability for the skewed, propaganda-laced content of Wikipedia and its counterparts abroad, while funding them and letting them use the Wikimedia "brand" in their fundraising.

The multiple layers of corporate insulation also give the WMF deniability when it comes to the activities of chapter executives like Cummings. 

On Wikipedia, Cummings is an active member of the "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and often antisemitic editors who have turned every Wikipedia article on Israel and the Gaza war into an outlet for pro-Hamas propaganda. 

The most skillful and experienced of them, such as Cummings, create articles, promoting them on Wikipedia's main page, to advance the cause.

Cummings has a suitable pedigree for his anti-Israel activities. For six years he was "Wikimedian in Residence" at UNESCO, the infamous Israel-hating United Nations unit. "I work with UNESCO and other UN organisations to have the understanding, skills and relationships to be able to share their knowledge on Wikipedia," he pompously boasts on his LinkedIn page. 

In his current post he helps UN outfits use Wikipedia for publicity purposes. Or as he puts it: "I help UN agencies and other international organisations share their knowledge and content on Wikipedia." There's lots of synergy between his day job and his hobby of bashing Israel on Wikipedia, needless to say.

Cummings' crowning achievement for the Wikipedia Flood is a blatantly one-sided article, which he created in April 2024, whose sole purpose is to spread the blood libel that Israel is guilty of the war crime of "ecocide." 

He not only created the article but was the driving force in putting it on Wikipedia's main page. The pro-Hamas poison appeared there on May 29th.

Here is how the article appeared when he created it on April 7, 2024. 

John Cummings' Israel-bashing 'environmental impact' article, as he wrote it in April 2024

Article leads are very important, because many readers don't read beyond them, and this one is as "neutral" as a vampire bat. It is totally one-sided, making it seem as if Israel is laying waste to Gaza just for the hell of it. It makes no reference to Hamas and no reference to the thousands of Hamas incendiary arson balloons, dating back years, that deliberately set ablaze thousands of acres of Israeli farmlands near Gaza, and the fires set by Hezbollah in northern Israel over the past few months.

The "highlight" of the article as Cummings created it, and pretty much how it reads now, is the "ecocide" libel, an accusation that Israel is deliberately laying waste to Gaza's ecology just for kicks.

The 'Ecocide' section of Cummings' article and his footnoted sources.

Cummings sourced his pro-Hamas propaganda diatribe almost entirely to the anti-Israel British organ The Guardian and to "Truthout," a far-left blog. As a self-published blog, its use is discouraged to source articles, but sourcing rules mean little to the Wikipedia Flood.

Just two days after creating the grotesquely slanted article, Cummings pushed for it to be featured as a "Did you know" item on the main page, framing it as a war crimes accusation against Israel in Wikipedia's voice. 

Cummings framed his "DYK" nomination as an accusation of "ecocide."

As you can see from the "Did you know" nomination discussion, the article received immediate pushback from an editor, who chastised the lead section of the article for "hyperbole" and for failing Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. But eventually the article and the main page "DYK" were worded exactly as Cummings wanted.

In addition to this impressive achievement, Cummings has generated puffy articles on minor organizations with anti-Israel purposes. To boost the visibility of the latter and help them with their fundraising, he ensures that they are publicized on the main page as "DYK" items.

He did that with an obscure activist named Mira El Helbawi  and her organization Connecting Humanity, who raise money from naive westerners to give "ordinary Gazans" (and not Hamas, heaven forbid!) eSim cards. Likewise he made sure that Wikipedia gave a main-page plug to "Artists4Ceasefire," a group of anti-Israel Hollywood types who pushed for a Hamas victory via  ceasefire in October, while the blood was still coagulating in southern Israel.

The "Connecting Humanity" main page plug, which appeared on April 21, was a kind of two-for-one special, simultaneously promoting that dubious Gaza charity while also giving a shout-out to Al Jazeera "journalist" Hind Khoudary, a Hamas operative who turned over Gaza peace activists to the terror organization. 

Cummings publicized a dubious Gaza charity and a Hamas operative on Wikipedia's main page 

The Wikipedia article on Khoudary, linked in the DYK item, does not mention her despicable conduct of course. She betrayed her fellow Gazans months before the DYK item appeared, so Cummings was perfectly aware of her odious actions when he proposed mentioning Khoudary in the DYK. The idea originated with "Makeandtoss," a fellow member of the Wikipedia Flood.

It's not clear from the Wikimedia Foundation's opaque, vaguely worded Form 990 how much of its immense contributor dollars flow into Cummings' bank account or into Wikimedia Sverige for that matter. Funding of chapters is lumped in with other grants. 

Even without Cummings, there were already plenty of reasons to tell the Wikipedia Foundation to go away when it comes begging for money at the end of every year. Knowing that your money goes to pay the salary of an anti-Israel activist is icing on the cake.

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's AWOL Management Encourages Pro-Hamas Manipulation

Most Wikipedia 'arbitrators' don't even show up

Imagine a major media company in which the senior management is too busy at other things to do their jobs. 

This company is owned by a holding company that disclaims responsibility for content.

Together, they are a powerful, well-funded media combine that rejoices in their deficiencies and are happy to admit that there is no accountability for what is on their website, no supervision of editors and writers

They can but refuse to prevent their website from becoming a propaganda tool in the war against Israel.

I have just described Wikipedia. 

The 40 Jewish organizations that wrote the Wikimedia Foundation (the "holding company" above) to demand an investigation into the infamous "ADL is unreliable" decision were stunned into silence when the Wikimedia Foundation firmly rebuffed their appeal. 

What they don't get is that Wikipedia is intentionally mismanaged. Mismanagement is not a bug. It is a feature. Lack of accountability is marbled into the system. Wikipedia's overseers don't want to fix its problems. Even the volunteer "arbitrators" tasked with doing so are largely indifferent.

That is why Wikipedia is vulnerable to exploitation by determined pro-Hamas, anti-Israel and antisemitic operatives, professional and volunteer propagandists that I call the "Wikipedia Flood." 

That is why people who complain to Wikipedia, no matter how distinguished or influential, are told to pound sand. That is why Wikipedia shrugs off negative press attention. Organizations that are not accountable do that, whether they are Al Qaeda, the Sinaloa Cartel, or Wikipedia.

The shunning of responsibility by the so-called "Arbitration Committee," the highest Wikipedia tribunal, is the topic of a conversation currently underway on a Wikipedia discussion page. Here is a permalink to that discussion.

The "arbs" hold actual power and are in a position to stem the Wikipedia Flood. They've been asked to do so. 

Last month I posted an item on this blog describing how the "arbs" were asked to address misconduct by pro-Hamas editors. But as can be seen from the discussion captured at the top of this page, in the six weeks since that case has been pending 9 of the 13 arbs haven't even shown up to discuss the case! Only four have shown up, and only one has made a substantive contribution.

With most arbitrators too busy or lazy to care, the Wikipedia Flood has been granted a victory by default.   

Here's a permalink to the Arbitration case page as it currently appears. As you can see, the Wikipedia Flood quickly descended on the page with word salads, diversions, threats and meaningless "data." The anti-Zionist contingent wore down everyone else with the sheer gusto of their nitpicky argumentation, and the case is petering out.

The pro-Hamas editors know that "pounding away" works. It deters "the enemy" from speaking out, while persuading the arbs that the whole thing is just too darn complicated to take up their valuable time. One of their most persuasive tricks is to provide reams of meaningless "data" designed to "prove" that everything is just fine. 

They also divert the arbs by claiming that the occasional appearance of easily countered vandals, or "sockpuppets," is the real problem, if there is problem.

The pro-Hamas crew are experienced operatives and know how to work the system. Brushing off "arbcom" has been a slam-dunk. Some of their most reliable allies are volunteer "administrators" who are biased against Israel but pretend to be "uninvolved" in the subject matter. As a commenter points out below:  "Biased administrators are a serious and underestimated reason why anti-Israel editors carry the day. It's like the old saying, 'When you are playing poker with people who are dealing below the deck, the best thing to do is to fold.'"

The Wikimedia Foundation is perfectly aware that its "administrators" and "arbitrators" are not going to lift a finger to stop the Wikipedia Flood. 

So when they told the ADL and the Conference of Presidents that "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,” what they are basically saying is that there is no accountability on Wikipedia, no matter how much it is abused by pro-Hamas propagandists.

This means that there are two ways of fighting the Flood. 

One way is to get in there and edit the articles that the Flood is attacking. I've posted a blog item describing how to do that. 

The other is to work actively against Wikimedia Foundation fundraising until and unless Wikipedia or the Foundation takes meaningful action against pro-Hamas operatives. There is usually a big fundraising push at the end of the year.

Don't just not give them money. Urge others not to do so. 

Defund Wikipedia.

This Blog is Getting Attention; Anti-Israel Editors Generate a Manifesto

When I began this blog in March it received virtually no attention. It was irritating. At one point I considered just giving up. No one was reading it! 

But in recent weeks I've begun to get social media and press attention, and now my "eyeballs" are through the roof. My X feed (do follow me) has gotten some pickup. I've been quoted in the media, especially by the Jewish Journal, which has thoroughly covered Wikipedia's infiltration by anti-Israel operatives. Two articles on Wikipedia appeared only yesterday in the Journal, and both prominently quoted this blog. 

Perhaps the biggest sign of this blog's growing influence, and the fear it has engendered among the people I'm writing about, has come in recent days. 

Anti-Israel Wikipedia editors have created a "deep fake" imitation of this blog. Their going to all that trouble and expense (this blog has cost me nothing) confirms of course that they are afraid of their words and actions being publicly aired, even though everything they do is public. 

More importantly, they used the opportunity to publish a manifesto telling us about themselves. They tell us that they are people who want Israel destroyed. They want a Hamas victory. They're quite frank about it. 

The two most recent articles in the Jewish Journal, both by the investigative journalist Aaron Bandler, are as follows:

■  An article quoting my Sept. 19 blog post, describing how pro-Hamas editors manipulated Wikipedia processes so that Wikipedia proclaims, in its corporate voice, that Israel is an apartheid state.

■  An accompanying article, quoting my Sept. 14 blog item, exploring how the Zionism article was turned into an anti-Zionist polemic riddled with antisemitism.

Now, here is the deepfake. Click to enlarge. I don't recommend going to the site itself for obvious reasons:

Anti-Israel editors share their thoughts

Below, in full, are the entire contents of the deepfake site:

As most of you know we are now about to enter the one year mark since the Gaza genocide great war against terrorism began. Our Dear Leader works day and night to bring our human sacrifices hostages home. So what if we become an international pariah. So what if we violate every international agreement and conduct that we are signatory to. So what that our economy is being turned into rubble, that our people are about to revolt, that the occupied land country is about to collapse, that over half a million have fled the occupied land country… you know what, that’s not important.

 What is important, is that we are on the cusp of being defeated by defeating Hamas Khamas. Yes we have not completely secured Northern Gaza, or the South now that you think about it. These people just won’t stop; after everything we did to for them. They just won’t give up and surrender return our human sacrifices hostages. It is as if Hamas Khamas did not hear we have been beaten by beating them around Gaza. We have been dropping 2000 pound bombs peace messages freedom fireworks all over the place and they are not happy.

Our Dear Leader Satanyahu Netanyahu has another blindingly dumb brilliant plan to start a war on another front, after having our bottoms spanked raw achieving many losses victories in Gaza.

Do not worry dear murderous maniacs Zioinists; we will be spanked by defeat Hamas Khamas and achieve total catastrophe victory!

The authors of the childish rhetoric quoted above control every article you read on Wikipedia that has anything to do with Israel. Let that sink in. 

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 Attacks German Antisemitism Fight

Lead section of Wikipedia's newly created article on Germany's antisemitism fight

Wikipedia struck a blow for antisemitism today. No, not against antisemitism, but in favor of it, smearing German efforts to fight antisemitism—and doing so on Wikipedia's front page. 

The online encyclopedia's legions of anti-Zionist editors have long been poisoning Wikipedia to promote a key part of the anti-Israel agenda: that the fight against antisemitism is bogus where anti-Zionists are concerned, and that most purported antisemites are actually just being "critical of Israel." 

Today they scored a big victory in that effort, promoting their agenda right on Wikipedia's highly-trafficked Main Page. 

The Main Page today says the following in its "Did you know" section:

[Did you know]... that one researcher found that nearly a third of the people cancelled over antisemitism allegations in Germany have been Jews?

The "Do you know" section showcases excerpts from newly created articles, and drives enormous traffic over to the articles mentioned. This one features an article created a few weeks ago titled "Anti-antisemitism in Germany." If you click over there you find that it is an anti-Zionist polemic that is intensely critical of the German opposition to antisemitism. 

The vast majority of that article is an outright attack on the German antisemitism fight, containing little that actually describes the antisemitism problem in Germany, which has become a serious problem since Oct. 7, and instead is devoted to bashing efforts to counter it. 

That's a blatant violation of Wikipedia neutrality rules, but as I have pointed out before, Wikipedia policies do not apply to the "Wikipedia flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors.  

Half the lead of the article consists of this anti-Zionist diatribe:

Controversially, the German government officially classifies the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, the accusation that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, and the depiction of Israel as a colonial or settler-colonial entity, as antisemitic. Many of those arrested and cancelled in Germany over allegations of antisemitism have been Jews critical of Israel's policies.

Further down in the article you can see how thoroughly the article has been poisoned by anti-Zionist editors in the "Ideology," "Deplatforming and arrest of Jews" and "Reception" sections, which comprise most of the article.  

The "Deplatforming" section portrays the fight against German antisemitism as so broken that it targets innocent Jews who are outraged by that terrible regime over there in Israel. 

To the right is a photo and caption that drives home the anti-Zionist point with all the subtlety of a hydrogen bomb. Beneath a photograph of a sign saying "Free Palestine From German Guilt" is the following anti-Zionist caption:

German guilt over the Holocaust motivates unquestioning support for Israel, which has led to Jews voicing criticism of Israel being accused of antisemitism; Israeli filmmaker Yuval Abraham said in response to such accusations, "If this is Germany's way of dealing with its guilt over the Holocaust, they are emptying it of all meaning"

All three illustrations in the article are abused in similar fashion to make anti-Israel propaganda points.  

The wording in the "Do You Know" item was taken from an article in the British anti-Israel organ The Guardian, quoting the anti-Zionist activist Emily Dische-Becker. 

The Guardian article was authored last February by Kenan Malik, a British Muslim writer, in an article lecturing Jews on what is and isn't antisemitism. That, in turn hyperlinks toward a podcast in something called "The Dig," in which Dische-Becker is interviewed. In other words, this smear of German antisemitism efforts was in effect "laundered" through a supposedly "reliable" source, The Guardian, but originates from an impermissible "self-published" source, a podcast. 

By the way:

If you don't like that article don't bother bringing your complaint to the self-styled Wikipedia criticism message board "Wikipediocracy." It was created and largely permeated with anti-Zionist content by the user "Jayen466." He identifies himself as Andreas Kolbe, co-founder of Wikipediocracy. As I've mentioned previously, Wikipediocracy functions as a platform for anti-Israel editors.

Wikipedia Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State

'Israel and apartheid' article before and after pro-Hamas editors attacked (click to enlarge)

When you blog about Wikipedia's anti-Israel obsession, there is so much going on that it's possible to miss important stuff. I did. I've just learned, totally through happenstance, that in recent weeks the "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors has achieved a major victory that received little if any attention outside Wikipedia.

Through sheer force of numbers, and by cannily working the system, they have manueuvered Wikipedia into saying, in its own voice, that Israel is an apartheid state, right up there with South Africa in the bad old days.

This propaganda victory achieves a major objective of pro-Hamas editors, which is to put Wikipedia as an institution on the Hamas bandwagon. It's not enough to twist articles and make them biased. They want Wikipedia to become part of their propaganda war against Israel. 

They do this in two ways, both of which took place with the "Israeli apartheid" article:

1.  Changing the titles of articles so that Wikipedia says flat-out that Israel is a no-good, genocide-committing apartheid state.

2. Rewriting the articles themselves to make those same statements, removing all balance, neutrality and words like "alleged," and not giving or downplaying the Israeli side of the story. 

They carried out their mission in the "apartheid" article not long after they rammed through a change in the title of an article so that Wikipedia itself says that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza war. 

While all the oxygen was being consumed by the "Gaza genocide" controversy, they quietly did the same thing for an article that had been titled "Israel and apartheid." Now it's titled "Israeli apartheid," 

As a result of this title change, and previously by a months-long rewriting of the article itself, Wikipedia is saying in its own voice that Israel is committing apartheid. It's not treated as an accusation that Israel and its defenders fervently deny. It's a fact, poison to be spread around the world on the most-read English language reference site.

The mechanics of the change took place in two steps, first preceding the October 7 Hamas slaughters and then afterwards, when the Wikipedia Flood commenced attacking articles in earnest.

At the top of this blog post you can how they turned the article into Hamas propaganda. 

On the left is how the article appeared in June 4, 2023, as captured by the Wayback Machine. (The article history shows the same version of the article but not what its title was at the time.) On the right is how it appears as of Sept. 19.

Aside from the change in the title, the beginning of the article was completely differently than it is today. In June 2023 the title of the article was neutral ("Israel and apartheid") and the lead of the article read as follows:

Israel is accused by international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both in the occupied Palestinian territories and, by some, in Israel proper. Israel and its supporters deny the charges.

That wasn't good enough. The pro-Hamas editors aren't into neutrality or fairness. They want outright propaganda, and they were emboldened by Oct. 7. 

In the months that followed, and at an accelerated pace after Oct. 7, they were able to turn the article into outright, unashamed anti-Israel propaganda. Now the title is "Israeli apartheid" and the article currently says as follows in the first paragraph:

Israeli apartheid is a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel proper. This system is characterized by near-total physical separation between the Palestinian and the Israeli settler population of the West Bank, as well as the judicial separation that governs both communities, which discriminates against the Palestinians in a wide range of ways. Israel also discriminates against Palestinian refugees in the diaspora and against its own Palestinian citizens.

Note that "Israeli apartheid" is stated as fact, without even a weak attempt at balance or neutrality.

The pro-Hamas editors, who coordinate their efforts offsite, drove the point home in a new second paragraph:

After the 1948 Palestine war, Israel denied Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled from what became its territory the right of return and right to their lost properties. Since the 1967 Six Day War, Israel has been occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which is now the longest military occupation in modern history, and in contravention of international law has been constructing large settlements there that separate Palestinian communities from one another and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. The settlements are mostly encircled by the Israeli West Bank barrier. While the Jewish settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, the Palestinian population is subject to military law. Settlers also enjoy access to separate roads and exploit the region's natural resources at its Palestinian inhabitants' expense.

I could spend the rest of this blog item and a dozen others dissecting, point by point, how this new paragraph is a total rewriting of history. Suffice to say that it does not even pretend to comply with Wikipedia policies requiring neutrality.

To gild the lily, during the summer of 2023 someone added a photo showing a street in Hebron upon which someone stenciled (in English for foreign consumption or perhaps just this photo) the words "Apartheid Street." The photo, taken during a propaganda tour of the West Bank, was uploaded to Flickr by a British anti-Zionist politician named John E. Austin.  

The title change happened swiftly on the "talk page" of the article. The entirety of the discussion can be found here.

It began last July 20, when the veteran anti-Israel editor "Makeandtoss" commenced the "requested move" discussion with the comment that "this move should have been implemented years ago."

Pretty much everyone agreed. Unlike the two-month discussion on the effort by these same coterie of editors to say in Wikipedia's voice that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, there was little substantive discussion at all. Not a single editor objected. The deed was done on August 5 by an administrator named "Robertsky" just two weeks after it was proposed.

While the lack of interest in this title change is startling, as is the lack of pushback into the article's gradual transformation into blatant Hamas propaganda, that's not really surprising. 

The pro-Hamas editors are well-organized offsite and, above all, far more numerous than the editors who might oppose them. They can branch out all around Wikipedia and bring their friends with them.

They are often editors of long-standing. "Makeandtoss" has been around for ten years. Such editors  know how to work the system.

As the "apartheid" article's transformation into Hamas literature demonstrates, they've done an effective job of turning Wikipedia from a reliable if flawed source of information on the Middle East into a propaganda-filled dust bin.