Who Administers Wikipedia?

Who Administers Wikipedia?

We recently asked Who Edits Wikipedia, and introduced our readers to a fascist who, along with fellow Hitler-admirers defends old Adolf from “anti-Nazi propaganda.”  But it is Administrators who wield the rel power at Wikipedia.  And some of them have highly questionable political commitments.  Among them, an editor who boasts that he “chose my Username after El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, better known as Malcolm X, whose life and words inspire me.”

You remember Malcolm X?  A man who argued for redress of legitimate black American grievances by “any means necessary”, by which he meant violence.  “I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man’s problem just to avoid violence.”

Personally, I am an admirer of Martin Luther King, who dedicated his life to achieving civil rights by non-violent means, and made America a better place.  I shudder to think what this country might be like today if impatient Americans had followed Malcolm X and launched the kind of violent revolution that Malcolm X advocated in this 1964 interview.

Monthly Review: You often use the word revolution, is there a revolution underway in America now?

MALCOLM X: There hasn’t been. Revolution is like a forest fire. It burns everything in its path. The people who are involved in a revolution don’t become a part of the system—they destroy the system, they change the system. The genuine word for a revolution is Umwälzung which means a complete overturning and a complete change and the Negro Revolution is no revolution because it condemns the system and then asks the system that it has condemned to accept them into their system. That’s not a revolution—a revolution changes the system, it destroys the system and replaces it with a better one.

“I don’t go for anything that’s non-violent and turn-the-other-cheekish. I don’t see how any revolution—I’ve never heard of a non-violent revolution or a revolution that was brought about by turning the other cheek, and so I believe that it is a crime for anyone to teach a person who is being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself.”

In addition to admiring Malcolm X, this editor is an avowed anarchist who admires Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.  Berkman was very like Malcolm X, both wanted to lead violent revolutions.  Malcolm X against white folk and Berkman against capitalists.  While Berkman was on probation for attempting to assassinate Henry Clay Frick he helped with a plan to kill John D. Rockefeller by planting a bomb at this home.  The explosives were stored in a Lexington Avenue apartment when they accidentally blew up. 

Wikipedia: where admirers of anarchism, violent revolution, assassination, and murder by bombing rule.

The following two tabs change content below.


Latest posts by wiki02138 (see all)

Get Wikibias Updates by Email


  1. says

    Malik Shabazz, your sarcastic response above indicates a sense of guilt. It is good that you feel guilty. The question remains – what are you going to do about it?

  2. says

    Malik Shebazz, as he is known on Wikipedia, is one of the most prominent administrator who introduced the new trend of politicization into this project. This is especially relevant to articles about the Middle East conflict where he actively helped politically motivated editors and tried (with some success) to convince other administrators that their tendentious edits where “neutral” while all other edits should be rejected. He also supported the block of many users who were not in line with his opinions.

  3. Malcolm Schosha says

    I don’t see anything for you to be “flattered” about, nor any reason to be insulted either.

    The article hardly discusses the many problems related to your editing of Wikipedia, but comments instead on the problematic mind set a Jewish insurance actuary, such as yourself, editing with the wiki-alias of an African-American man who grew up very poor on mean streets, and who advocated violence as an acceptable method to achieve his goals.

    If there is any justification for feeling insulted, perhaps it is spirit of Malcolm X who should be insulted that you are using his name to live a fantasy of advocating revolution while sitting comfortably all day in front of a computer screen.

    User: Malik Shabazz? That’s funny, really. LOL.

  4. Cardinal says

    I agree, Malcolm Schosha. People should not have heroes of a different skin colour, nor should they be commended for voicing support of revolutionary civil rights leaders. But they should certainly be skewered based solely on their perspectives; this saves the time that would have been spent proving troublesome behaviour yet allows us to still dismiss them as disruptive. This website just oozes nerd-rage under the flimsy guise of investigative activism. Please never change, Wikibias <3.

    • Malcolm Schosha says

      Cardinal, there are some distortions in your commits. For instance

      1.You have accused me of having the pov that “People should not have heroes of a different skin colour”, which I did not say. (MLK Jr is a hero of mine)

      2. You wrote that he “should they be commended for voicing support of revolutionary civil rights leaders”, but there is nothing revolutionary about violence, which is an ancient form of viciousness and user:Malik Shabazz taking that for his hero is problematic.

      3.You have implied that I have “skewered” user:Malik Shabazz ” based solely on his perspectives”, but you do not say what you think his perspective is. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

      It seems, Cardinal, that you have done some editing of Wikipedia. In the interests of openness, what is your user name?

  5. says

    @ Dror: You live in Fantasyland if you think I introduced politicization to Wikipedia’s coverage of the Middle East.

    @Cardinal: I happen to be an African-American Jew, not that there’s anything wrong with a person having heroes of different skin colors, religions, etc.

    • Malcolm Schosha says

      User: Malik Shabazz wrote: “…not that there’s anything wrong with a person having heroes of different skin colors, religions, etc.”

      Yes. Pleasant when you say something I can agree with.

  6. Cardinal says

    I’m being sarcastic. “the problematic mind set a Jewish insurance actuary, such as yourself, editing with the wiki-alias of an African-American man who grew up very poor on mean streets”; comment implies that theres something wrong with having heroes who aren’t like you (even if they are). This whole witch hunt has presented nothing but circumstantial evidence that maybe Malik is doing something wrong. Surprise.

    • Malcolm Schosha says

      I said that I think he is living a fantasy life as a wiki-revolutionary. Fantasies that replaces real action seem pretty common among the sedentary computer geeks who dominate among Wikipedia administrators, and many of its most active editors. Wiki-warriors seem to use Wikipedia as a free substitute for sites like Second Life.

      Malcolm X did advocate violence, and that gives an actuary something to fantasize about. As for Malcolm X himself, I always have felt somewhat sympathetic because he really was trying to help African-Americans who were (still are too) living with daily vicious treatment, and he did not have the benefit of the Harvard education that MLC had. I think Malcolm X grew throughout his life, and if he had lived longer he would have made many changes in his movement. But, as the record stands, he advocated violence and separatism. Not so good for a Wikipedia administrator’s user name.

      There is no “witch hunt”. Don’t talk nonsense. Criticism is not a witch hunt, and this site is very mild in its criticisms compared to stuff from other sites that are on the other side of these issues.

      You still have not said what your own Wikipedia user name is, and that leaves the impression that your own editing history is far from neutral on the issues being discussed here.

  7. Cardinal says

    Exactly. This article (?) has nothing to do with Malik as an admin and everything to do with him liking Malcolm X, focusing on X’s negative aspects and insinuating this somehow makes Malik unfit. Malcolm X advocated violence in limited circumstances, . Is Malik Shabaz some how going to use this violence to harm Wikipedians? Does place Black Pride symbols in unrelated article templates? Does he ban users from the Nation of Islam? I’m going to put a big picture of Menachim Begin on my user page and then we can have an article about how I like terrorist leaders and just ignore everything else.

    • Malcolm Schosha says

      Cardinal, you still have not told us your Wikipedia user name, which is needed to judge your editing history and your objectivity in these matters.

  8. says

    Malik is an outspoken admirer of Malcolm X, who advocated violent revolution against the democratic government of the United States.

    And also an outspoken admirer of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman who advocated violent revolution, and who both advocated and undertook acts of politically motivated terrorism. Berkman was a terror bomber. Malik admires him.

    In his role as administrator Malik has blocked editors who oppose terrorism as a political tool.

    I do question the judgment of Wikipedia editors who give to an advocate of terror bombing and admirer of Alexander Berkman the power to block editors who oppose terrorism.

  9. says

    You forgot to mention that I’ve blocked people who support racism. I suppose that makes me a Black supremacist. [eye roll]

    Let’s get something straight, Wiki02138. I’ve never blocked anybody because of her or his political beliefs (nor religious beliefs, etc.). I block editors who are disruptive. Period.

    • Malcolm Schosha says

      It is easy for an administrator to use “disruptiveness” as an excuse to block virtually any editor they want to block. That is all the more true if there is just one editor on one side of the issue, and a WP:Circus on the other side. As for instance, when you helped get me indefinitely blocked, when I was editing against you and several others in the Self-hating Jew article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIRCUS
      Later, after my wiki-exile, some of the changes I wanted were made, because a few more editors got involved who agreed with me. But that was after I was blocked.

      What you were fighting to keep out of the self-hating Jew article was sourced material that made the term ‘self-hating Jew’ sound a lot like you, ie an antisemitic Jew. So your opposition to my changes to the article, and support for my indefinite block, seem a little self-serving.

  10. says


    You say that your blocks are a-political, others say that they are politically motivated.

    You can prove the truth of your statement by posting a complete list of editors whom you have blocked.

  11. Malcolm Schosha says

    Wiki02138, there is a lot more involved than just blocks. For instance, there is this warning to an editor who had tried hard to add information about antisemitism in Poland, both before and after WW2. Polish and anti-Jewish editors and administrators managed to get him blocked for a year, during which time everything he added to the articles disappeared.

    As soon as the year block was over Malik Shabazz put a warning, titled “Welcome back” on his user talk page .
    It is politely worded, but the meaning was clear, and the editor involved seems to have chosen to do no further editing as a result of the warning . The result is the whitewashed Polish articles will continue as is.

  12. says

    How very interesting. Thank you Malcolm. The articles on Jews in Poland are among the most biased on wikipedia, written and policed by individuals who cleanse the pages of accurate history of the kind written by professionals like Jan Gross. The period that Malik describes as having been “collegial” has simpl been absent of anyone trying to add accurate material to the pages.

    Poland, first they ethnically cleansed the country of Jews, now they work to ethnically cleanse Polich history of Jews.

  13. William Smart says

    Have the Polish not suffered enough from the violent racism of the Zionists? As David Ben-Gurion reminded us from his time in Plonsk, he never suffered from antisemitism and his gang terrorised the Polish. They turned up in Palestine and took to beating the Palestinians with even more enthusiasm.

  14. says

    Nonsense. Polish nationalists have got to grow up and face the fact that in the modern era Poles were victims of German fascism, but Poles also elected viciously anti-Semitic governments in the 1930’s, committed the mass murder of Jews both during and after the war, and threw the remnant of Polish Jewry out in 1968.

    Poles also have to reprimand and reeducate contemporary anti-Semites, like William Smart.

  15. Malcolm Schosha says

    Readers of this blog might be interested to know that the Wikipedia editor known as ‘Bali ultimate’ has given Wikibias a mention on WP:AN/I:

    You will notice that he claims that Wikibias is involved in “outing and harrasing editors here.” Like most of Bali ultimate’s claims, that is unsupported by any evidence, and the claim is in fact a lie. (That lie is part of a mean spirited, and vicious, discussion concerning me that he initiated. I feel just so honored to receive the attention.)

    • NeatSabra says

      . . .so you got a record length block list and now you are complaining when they tag you for it? I understand you’re trying to help but if all you can do is disrupt then the effort is better off with you on the sideline.

      • Malcolm Schosha says

        I have no idea what your point is. My block list is not record length, so you started with a lie.

        As for the tags, in most organizations if there is an employee problem (and Wikipedia editors are, in effect, volunteer employees of Wikipedia) they put that into the a file that is available to managers who have a reason to know. I believe that no organization, other than Wikipedia, publishes such information on the web. Doing that — if you think the blocks themselves are justified or not — is arrogant and mean-spirited. That is what predominates in the AN/I discussion: arrogance, and mean-spiritedness.

  16. says

    Interesting particularly in light of the aggressive outing and blocking of pro-Israel editors.

    Take a look at this editors short list of non-disruptive contributions.


    Blocked almost as soon as he began editing. He may or may not have been a sock puppet (anyone can learn to do the duck walk) but the reason he was blocked is because he was adding sanity to an effort to delete articles about Jewish actors.