Following a failed effort to delete the page about the killing of Ukrainian war refugee Iryna Zarutska last week, admins on Wikipedia blocked all non-admin editing to prevent mentioning suspect Decarlos Brown Jr.’s name before finally the lock was downgraded to allow experienced editors. This came after the deletion attempt was heavily criticized on social media, including by House Representative Andy Biggs, who serves on the Oversight Committee currently investigating the online encyclopedia’s political bias.

Efforts to delete the Wikipedia article and block inclusion of the suspect’s name were more protective of Brown compared to cases involving Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha and Daniel Penny in New York City where the two white males were acquitted after arguing they acted defensively. Unlike the case of Decarlos Brown Jr., editors were also keen to mention both were white.

Zarutska was stabbed to death on the light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina on August 22. A 23-year-old refugee from the war in Ukraine, Zarutska’s killing sparked social media outrage after footage from CCTV cameras emerged showing her death. Brown was arrested on murder charges alleging he was the man seen viciously stabbing Zarutska in the video. Social media discussion focused on the lack of coverage from most major establishment news outlets. As the story and footage spread on social media, an editor on Wikipedia created a page on Zarutska’s stabbing.

Despite the article citing BBC News Ukraine and the Independent in the United Kingdom, editors repeatedly tagged the article for notability citing the policy that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, often shortened as NOTNEWS. Under that policy, even if a subject received coverage supporting its inclusion under the site’s normal notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in sources deemed reliable on Wikipedia, the article may be deleted if it is merely the subject of routine news coverage. Specific guidelines regarding events, such as crimes, say an event that has received significant national or international coverage can be considered notable on the site.

Following repeated tagging of the article, editor “Tbhotch” nominated the article for deletion citing allegations that the article on Zarutska’s killing violated Wikipedia’s NOTNEWS policy. At the time of the nomination, the killing had also just received in-depth coverage in the Daily Telegraph, which is considered reliable on Wikipedia. Editors nominating pages for deletion are expected to check if additional sources exist beforehand that could address notability concerns. While Zarutska’s stabbing had also received national coverage at the time in the New York Post, Breitbart News, and Fox News, all are treated as unreliable on Wikipedia regarding political topics due to an ongoing purge of conservative media on the site.

Within the first two hours of the article being nominated for deletion, a flurry of editors commented to call for deletion, including several identifying themselves as left-wing or liberal on their profile pages. These editors were largely dismissive of social media attention about the killing, including from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, alleging efforts to “astroturf” the story and claiming they were “trying to make this into something far greater than it really merrits[sic].” Discussion on deleting the page soon attracted attention from an account on X objecting to the deletion attempt:

Editors subsequently tagged the discussion stating it was “not a vote” as decisions are decided by the perceived strength of arguments under policy and another editor warned of “canvassing” in reference to Wikipedia policy against promoting discussions in a way deemed as attempting to rig it in favor of a specific conclusion. Criticism of the deletion attempt also appeared in comments from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) on Facebook and X stating: “Wikipedia is already trying to memory hole Iryna Zarutska’s murder because it doesn’t fit the Leftstream Media’s narrative. Don’t let them.”

Biggs serves on the House Oversight Committee, which announced last month that it was conducting an investigation into bias on Wikipedia. The Committee requested information from the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia regarding the potential involvement of foreign actors, particularly regarding anti-Israeli and pro-Russian editing. Similar concerns prompted a bipartisan request from Congressional lawmakers earlier this year and an earlier request from then-acting U.S. Attorney for D.C. Ed Martin, which saw editors retaliating against Martin’s Wikipedia page.

Increased attention on the deletion discussion prompted one of the editors supporting deletion of the article to seek support at a noticeboard for administrators complaining people allegedly arriving due to the attention were “attempting to derail it into another culture issue rather than just a common crime of circumstance.” Editor “Silver seren” commented on that discussion, after supporting deletion, and suggested that any admin closing the deletion discussion should not issue a “no consensus” result where neither deletion nor inclusion is deemed to have enough support because it would default to keeping the article in line with the wishes of outside critics.

Seren is a long-time member of the Article Rescue Squadron, which is notorious on Wikipedia for aggressively campaigning against deleting articles that other editors deemed non-notable and its members have been repeatedly criticized for engaging in canvassing of deletion discussions to keep articles on trivial topics prompting major conflicts over the years (Disclosure: this author was one such critic who came into conflict with the group). Despite this background, Seren pushed for the discussion to be restricted to limit participation from new editors and further complained of commentator and journalist Ian Miles Cheong discussing the deletion attempt.

Administrator Isabelle Belato, whose profile page links a video by left-wing comedian John Oliver railing against conservatives over transgender policy, consequently imposed “extended-confirmed” protection on the deletion discussion so only editors with over 500 edits and active for 30 days could comment. Other editors buried comments from less active editors with fewer edits in a collapsed section. Despite these efforts to suppress editors opposing deletion, admin “Asilvering” closed the discussion in favor of keeping the article after just a day. The close came amid increased coverage in Wikipedia-approved sources and pro-deletion voters switching votes in favor of keeping the page, including an early pro-deletion editor.

The pro-deletion editor who opened the admin noticeboard discussion noted Asilvering’s close there, claiming to have also been preparing to switch votes. Silver seren branded it a “terrible close with a vague reasoning” that merely counted votes and blamed “outside political machinations and canvassing” for the outcome. Going further, Seren compared the situation to Wikipedia’s handling of the GamerGate anti-corruption movement in gaming, which he claimed sidelined the regular editing community in favor of “single-purpose accounts” who supported the movement. In reality, despite some notable GamerGate opponents being banned for misconduct, Wikipedia admins cracked down on editors trying to have the movement portrayed fairly and editors turned pages about GamerGate into left-wing smears, while enabling actual single-purpose accounts opposed to the movement.

Leading up to, during, and after the discussion about deleting the article, editors also feuded over mentioning Brown’s name and race in the article. This included removing quotes mentioning Brown’s name in the reference section of the article. Following repeated edits to insert the name, the page was placed under full protection by admin “ScottishFinnishRadish” to where only admins could edit the page. Initially meant to last two days, the protection was reinstated for a month by another admin after fighting over the name continued. Discussion on including the name also saw significant participation with editors overwhelmingly favoring inclusion.

Policy on criminal allegations against individuals generally discourages accusing a named person of a crime if that person is not a public figure and encourages omitting names of private individuals known only for one event in general. However, these are not outright prohibitions and many editors argued Brown’s name was already widespread in the sources cited in the article. Some editors opposing inclusion of Brown’s name tried to argue his name was only included in passing, despite many sources detailing his personal background along with his criminal and mental health history.

Silver seren was one editor opposed to including the name, but proclaimed it didn’t matter and mostly ranted about an editor he claimed was a “single-purpose account” for mainly editing various politics-related articles. One other editor opposing inclusion was Simon McNeil, who edits as “Simonm223” on Wikipedia and supported deleting the article on Zarutska’s killing entirely. McNeil similarly ranted about how the article was wrongly kept. Earlier this year McNeil pushed for deleting the UK grooming gangs scandal article. That deletion attempt saw similar social media outrage with many noting McNeil authored a blog post that supported exposing children to sexual kinks and fetishes at Pride marches.

Ultimately, discussion was closed in favor of including the name and protection downgraded back to extended-confirmed level. The admin closing the discussion indicated there was a 3-to-1 vote in favor of inclusion, though stating this only provided “rough consensus” in favor as arguments against inclusion were slightly stronger. No similar discussion has been initiated regarding Brown’s race with the only mention buried in the article when noting conservative criticism of media coverage. An attempt to add Zarutska and Brown’s races in the intro was undone claiming Wikipedia should not make it about race if investigators have not done the same, despite significant coverage on the racial element of the crime, and the same editor argued against mentioning Brown allegedly stating “I got that white girl” on the CCTV footage.

Resistance to including Brown’s name and race contrasts significantly with the death of Jordan Neely, a black homeless man killed by Penny inadvertently on the New York subway after Neely became erratic and aggressive. Editors included Penny’s name shortly after he was identified. While there were efforts to exclude the name, a section of the article was set up about him within two days of its creation. Penny’s name and race were mentioned throughout the article even before he had been charged. Neely’s own criminal history and mental health issues were simultaneously kept out of the intro. Admins early on locked the article to keep mention of race.

Discussion about including Penny’s name initiated within days of him being identified and prior to charges continued as Penny’s name remained in the article. The article was not locked to exclude it as with Brown. That discussion was closed by admin ScottishFinnishRadish with a finding of “no consensus” that defaulted to excluding Penny’s name. However, a challenge to the close was initiated just two days later and a new discussion started a day after that overwhelmingly endorsed inclusion. Penny was ultimately acquitted of all criminal charges stemming from the killing of Neely.

Within days of Rittenhouse shooting several Black Lives Matter supporters who had chased and attacked him, the article on the Kenosha riots and protests named him extensively in a section about the incident, despite Rittenhouse being a juvenile at the time. He was also persistently identified as white, but not the individuals he shot, though direct mention of his race was later removed inadvertently and reintroduced months later in the article on the shooting itself. Editors objecting to content misrepresenting the shooting to paint Rittenhouse as not acting in self-defense had corrections rejected with others pushing to include him supporting Trump. Again, unlike in Brown’s case, the page was not protected from non-admin editing to keep his name out. A discussion on including the name was closed in favor within a week despite limited participation.

The admin closing that discussion also voted in it, an apparent violation of admin conduct standards. Editor “MrX” mockingly referenced policy on naming private individuals by stating they only need to “seriously consider” excluding the name and that is what they were doing. He then claimed as fact that Rittenhouse murdered people. Editor “Aquillion” voted to name Rittenhouse at the time, but recently voted against naming Brown on the page about Zarutska’s killing. Aquillion is a long-time left-wing activist editor, particularly regarding GamerGate, which he sought to tie to the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In later discussions about Rittenhouse, some editors called him a “domestic terrorist” or murderer and mass-shooter, comments previously reported by Breitbart. Rittenhouse was acquitted after arguing self-defense.

Although the Wikipedia deletion attempt and unequal treatment of Zarutska’s killing, including the handling of the suspect’s identity, has been criticized in numerous right-wing outlets, editors have opposed mention of the controversy. Fox News, the Daily Caller, Blaze, the Free Press, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and the International Business Times have all been denied recognition as “reliable sources” on Wikipedia with most effectively banned along with Breitbart News. On Wikipedia, it is all about “verifiability, not truth” for its editors.

(Disclosure: The author has been involved in disputes with several of the parties mentioned in the article)

T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.