Wikipedia Sucks!

Found this over at Richard Silverstein's blog: My Wikipedia Stalker. Silverstein is fluent is Israeli Hebrew, writes about how Israel is lurching into a military dictatorship, he acts as an outlet for news stories that are squashed inside Israel because the government can do so at any time, and he can get away with this because he lives in the US. His opponent Kigelim may be a crazy settler Zionist in East Jerusalem, or it might be part of an "orchestrated official effort", Silverstein does not know. He does say that one of his blog commenters, an account called "Ariel Levy" might have been Kigelim:

On June 18th, I wrote a post here comparing the treatment of immigrant children by ICE here in the U.S. to the fraudulent portrayal of the Palestinian family singled out by the Israeli army for harrassment and persecution. In the introduction to the post, I credited Israel for pioneering a number of nasty counter-terror security procedures. One of them was racial profiling. In the comment thread, a commenter calling himself Ariel Levy (certainly a pseudonym) claimed that Israel did not pioneer racial profiling. I responded by linking to a Wikipedia article on Racial Profiling in Israel which noted that Israel did first use the practice in airport security screening after 1972.

Due to his repeated comment rule infractions, I had just banned “Levy.” But he posted one last comment that was quite instructive:

And you [sic] Israeli profiling article will be deleted soon. Can’t believe you bring Wikipedia as a source, especially a tiny little article that is clearly written by an anti Israeli.

I visited the racial profiling Wikipedia article and noted that a user named Kigelim had initiated a campaign to delete the article on June 20th. The date he published his comment here was June 21st. Putting two and two together, it would appear that Kigelim of Wikipedia and Levy of the comment threads are one and the same. That’s called sockpuppetry and when you do it at one site like Wikipedia, it will get you in a lot of trouble.

Kigelim has been warned by Wikipedia admins for hammering the "Tikun Olam (blog)" article:

This is your final warning. You have been told repeatedly that you are not permitted to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Nevertheless, you continue to edit such articles.

You have been warned that your obsession with and hatred of Richard Silverstein is interfering with your ability to edit the encyclopedia in accordance with our policies concerning WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Nevertheless, you continue to edit Tikun Olam (blog) with wanton disregard for neutrality.

The next time I see you doing either of these, I will report you and you are likely to lose your editing privileges.

And this:

Kigelim, please read WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. It applies to “any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict”. Any page. As I wrote, If you don’t believe Tikun Olam (blog) is “related to the Arab-Israeli conflict”, please contact an administrator. She or he will set you straight. (Read the second sentence of the article, for god’s sake!) There is nothing to discuss—the rule is clear—you are not permitted to edit Tikun Olam (blog). Period.

Rather hilariously, both editors are theoretically prevented from participating in.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _in_Israel

.....due to Wikipedia's ARBPIA restrictions, which are a little more crude than profiling, but just as ridiculous.

Still, restrictions on Wikipedia are nothing if not easily ignored. The AfD is, after all, proceeding.

An error in your post highlights why this topic area is so fucked. Kigelim wasn't warned by an admin, but by disgraced former admin Malik Shabbaz, who has since been topic banned from Arab-Israeli topics because of his behaviour.

Topic bans and other specific restrictions in this area are ignored as easily as regular policies.

Unable to keep his erection in check at seeing a dispute cover both his favourite areas, Malik of course rushed to his friendly Admin Drmies to point out Kigelim shouldn't technically be allowed to start that AfD. Despite being open about his topic ban (and preemptively explaining how he didn't think this was a breach of it), that Administrator of course didn't report him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =847123189

In this environment, is it any wonder Wikipedia has a bit of a problem with ensuring neutrality in this area? It is games upon games upon games. The referees are as corrupt as the players.

CrowsNest wrote:Rather hilariously, both editors are theoretically prevented from participating in.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _in_Israel

.....due to Wikipedia's ARBPIA restrictions, which are a little more crude than profiling, but just as ridiculous.

Still, restrictions on Wikipedia are nothing if not easily ignored. The AfD is, after all, proceeding.

An error in your post highlights why this topic area is so fucked. Kigelim wasn't warned by an admin, but by disgraced former admin Malik Shabbaz, who has since been topic banned from Arab-Israeli topics because of his behaviour.

Topic bans and other specific restrictions in this area are ignored as easily as regular policies.

Unable to keep his erection in check at seeing a dispute cover both his favourite areas, Malik of course rushed to his friendly Admin Drmies to point out Kigelim shouldn't technically be allowed to start that AfD. Despite being open about his topic ban (and preemptively explaining how he didn't think this was a breach of it), that Administrator of course didn't report him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =847123189

In this environment, is it any wonder Wikipedia has a bit of a problem with ensuring neutrality in this area? It is games upon games upon games. The referees are as corrupt as the players.

R. Silverstein did not name who had handed down these pointless warnings and I didn't check. What may not be clear is that Richard Silverstein deals with endless commenters who are propagandist ("hasbara", or "explaining" is the Israeli term) sockpuppets, possibly paid for, and there to deflect anything the guy comes up with - they've been doing this for years. Thus Kigelim is co-ordination between blog propaganda and Wikipedia propaganda, so either this is one angry person or a group. If it's a group, then this is a project, and they've gotten better than the one they ran in 2014 for the Gaza war. Which means that Wikipedia is an accessory to foreign state propagandists if that's true. If that's true, then this thing is bigger than Malik Shabazz and the endless Israel-Palestine editwar on Wikipedia; it's a foreign power screwing with an American freelance journalist over reporting done about the foreign power. If this were North Korea or Iran, the uproar would be deafening, but because it's Israel, not a peep.

Any journalist who enters Wikipedia with a clear goal to edit pages toward a certain point of view, fatally compromises their ability to objectively assess what happened as a result, and why. It's just human nature. They will only ever be useful as witnesses, not reporters. Ergo, "if that is true" is a very crucial qualifier here. To not notice who was giving the warning or why, fatally undermines his credibility as a reporter of who does what on Wikipedia in this much fought over arena. I can understand you not spotting it, as you may have assumed he was indeed acting as a reporter not a witness, and therefore didn't feel the need to go check the underlying source material.

For full context, Malik had been desysopped in August 2015, but had been told he could be reinstated no questions asked, in July 2016 (something has wisely never done)....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =728856346

So in a parallel universe, that wholly unprofessional and aggressive warning delivered one month later, could indeed have been left by an Administrator, someone with full block powers to enforce it if disobeyed.

Fast forward to now, and the specifics of that warning ironically prove that Malik knows full well that what he did today, reaching out to Drmies to assist this journalist, should earn him a block under his topic ban, had it been reported to a neutral Administrator, one with absolutely no dog in the fight. Such things have an uncanny habit of not being reported, which is one of many reasons to suspect the Israeli government isn't winning this war, or even winning any battles, because they have no digital army deployed. I simply refuse to believe that they do, given they can't even take out one of their opponents main battlefield generals when he leaves himself exposed like that, as he so often does because he's such an out of control mental case.

When we look around for causes and explanations for this apparent dysfunction, do we really need to reach for the pages of the latest script from HBO? Or can we not first take some time to reassure ourselves that it isn't just more of the same - the standard ordinary shit that goes on all across Wikipedia, amped up to eleven when there is anything actually at stake. Like influencing the good/bad feels of decadent Westerners, who in all honesty have thankfully no real experience of what it must be like to be on one side of this conflict or the other. I came close to losing my father to an IRA sniper once, and yet I claim no special insight or right to edit in those topics. Malik however, he has admitted on plenty of occasions what fuels him, what motivates him to get up each morning and strategise for his next wiki session. Indeed he spends quite a lot of time away from the wiki for someone afflicted with the crazy this bad, so what might be be doing in those periods? Off-site coordination, perhaps? Receiving instructions? Giving instructions?

On the wider issue of his being stalked and gamed, I can sympathise. But as critics, we already know he isn't special in that regard, and he isn't the first person to write about it either. It's certainly not special or unique to Arab-Israel, it is simply Wikipedia+controversy=craziness.

Frankly, anyone who suspects Israle has a cell operating on or around Wikipedia, has to explain why they would be powerless, or at least choose to ignore, comments like this.....

Icewhiz, why do you feel the need to cite some numbers on how good Israel is? That has nothing to do with any of this, but it suggests that you are partisan here, with your innuendo that we shouldn't include the criticism because the country ticked up in the ratings. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That was easily found just today, uttered by none other than Malik's go-to Admin, Drmies. It's enough to earn a sharp rebuke for Drmies from a neutral admin, if not a formal instruction to stay the fuck away, similar to the order imposed on Malik. The ultimate effect of that comment, and others like it, will in this specific case be a negative outcome for Israel on the "Human rights in Israel" article. So it's not like they wouldn't be highly motivated to intervene. Such things are quite commom in this topic area, common enough to have been noted by an investigative reporter.

But as critics, we already know he isn't special in that regard, and he isn't the first person to write about it either. It's certainly not special or unique to Arab-Israel, it is simply Wikipedia+controversy=craziness.

It's unique in this case because somebody is writing about being wiki-stalked in 2018....who else is doing that? The dumb omerta of "what happens on Wikipedia should not be discussed outside of Wikipedia" has kept a lot of the stupidity hidden. Also, Barbour has a very thick file on the pointless edit wars Israel-Palestine has created as a subject, because Zionism seems to demand that its viewpoint ALONE should be the way to look at Israel.

Silverstein has been doing things on Wikipedia since 2005, and he is a freelance journalist - when the site was hot, why not get involved? It's amazing that he is still involved in any capacity.

.....To not notice who was giving the warning or why, fatally undermines his credibility as a reporter of who does what on Wikipedia in this much fought over arena. I can understand you not spotting it, as you may have assumed he was indeed acting as a reporter not a witness, and therefore didn't feel the need to go check the underlying source material.

That's nonsense - he treated any editors' rebuff of Kigelim as proof that the clown was getting on somebody's nerves. Does anybody outside of here and Wikipedia know who Drmies and Malik Shabazz are? With so many goobers on it, it is very easy to spend years in WikiLand and not know all the worst people that Eric Barbour and Peter Damian uncovered.

A journalist and a Wikipepian since 2005? I'm afraid that makes it even worse.

This is one of my biggest bugbears - when someone is seeking to expose Wikipedia but doesn't write from a position of confidence in their words, then frankly nobody benefits. Except perhaps Wikipedia.

The way you write about such things, is to give the Wikipedians no cards to play. The first thing any devout Wikipedian does when reading a critical piece, is search for any little mistake. In context, misidentification of an admin is a pretty big mistake. Especially when the language of the messages surely make clear he was not an Admin - they don't typically threaten to refer people to another admin for banning.

This shit matters. Why? Well, wouldn't you know it but it was none other than Drmies who has said this to Kigelim.....

Kigelim, please consume that baklava with joy, and stay away from articles under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. You've been notified of these before, and warned before, and I will not hesitate to block you if you violate these requirements again. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody who presents that message to the outside world as somehow the innocent follow-up of a benign Administration operating with all due neutrality and fairness in the Arab-Israeli topic area, has anywhere to go when it is pointed out who is who and what is what.

If you know who these people are, then you know Drmies would have Malik's back under any circumstances. But in a different context, if you reversed the actors perhaps, the result would be different. As such, Kigelim, or anyone wanting to defend his honour, can easily write their own blog which will appear to observers to do a pretty good job of making out like he's the victim, and that it is he who the Wikipedians are frustrating in his efforts to bring truth and neutrality to Wikipedia.

It is a common tactic on Wikipedia for biased admins to pick and choose which rule they follow, which warnings they find significant, which action they take, depending on the ultimate outcome for the nature of the content, and by extension the users you know are producing that brand of content. This how corruption on Wikipedia works, as long as you have enough power to get away with it - Drmies is one such admin, one of only a few with this privilege.

This is now they make sure their personal views becomes the content in Wikipedia. It is after all much easier to do this, retrofitting sources once opposition is eliminated, than their actual job of being neutral referees in content disputes. This is why Drmies was throwing shade on Icewhiz. No such shade is thrown on Malik for similar crimes. Why? Malik is not a perfect editor. Indeed he's a fucking moron who regularly gets basic policy wrong, then doubles down and acts like you're the idiot. He gets away with it because he has the protection of Drmies.

Knowing who is who and what is what is crucial. An issue related to this was raised at the Administrator's noticeboard......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ing_at_AfD

It was shut down quickly by Bbb23. Another innocent act of a benign institution? Not really. Bbb23 has a long history of reflexively getting Drmies out of the shit by shutting stuff down, stuff that in this case needed to be shut down because it risked Malik's topic ban breach being discovered (something he appears to have done again by commenting on that report), and indeed averted yet another civility block for Malik, for reasons similar to his last one (and which have everything to do with this topic area).

Not for nothing are the guys from The Register so hated for their seemingly accurate reporting, also gained from a position of working the inside, that it's good enough to get Jimbo himself decrying their massively respected and influential wbesite, as fake news.

If Silverstein's actual complaint is that he is being stalked on Wikipedia and nobody has done anything about it, then unless he has compelling evidence that the reason for this is solely because of what he writes about, then it isn't really relevant is it? The simple reality is, he probably hasn't got that evidence, and indeed it wouldn't take anyone very long to find examples of people on the other side who are similarly stalked.

The issue here is that Wikipedia takes a weak line on stalking full stop. One of the reasons why that is, is that if it had a zero tolerance approach to such things, people like Malik and Drmies would start to find their freedoms to do what they want are massively curtailed, and similarly Bbb23's freedom to brush everything they do neatly under the carpet, similarly stopped. That threatens people's ability to write content that Silverstone probably agrees with, and so it is clear his understanding of the dynamics in play here is faulty.

The whole assumption that anything that goes on at Wikipedia is what it appears to be at face value, is wrong. Critics should be aware of that, instead of, as appears to be the case with Silverstein, being an unwitting victim of it.

This edit appears particularly troubling......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =847083740

......in my view, his ability to report on this issue as an unbiased observer is fatally compromised.

People like Malik, Drmies and Bbb23 have been able to get where they are today on Wikipedia by exploiting people's unwillingness to properly keep track of who they are or what they do, or worse, develop a favourable view of them not because what they do is fair and ethical, but because on a cursory look, their particular brand of corruption results in things happening that benefit whatever cause they came to Wikipedia to fight for.