User talk:Oboler

BLP

As things are quiet at the BLP page, I've posted at User talk:Jayvdb‎#Andre Oboler's BLP query in the hope that he'll post to the thread. There was someone else who pruned things from the JIDF talk apge so you could try chasing them too.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Later: It looks like they'll be progress in a little while when he's finished dealing with another matter.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up Peter. Oboler (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andre, John has now contacted me saying he is ready to look at this and suggesting you email him.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I'll try find his details and drop him a note. Oboler (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a sidebox (which also functions as a topbox) at Talk:The Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 10#Found JIDF officer list on Facebook group. If the wording doesnt quite suit, or you have other BLP concerns, could you email me. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, I believe that will resolve it... thanks again. Oboler (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The JC etc

Hi Andre, I've just spotted your comment to me on another user's talk page. I'm not that well up on Jewish community politics. I may glance at the JC when I visit my parents but I'm not a subscriber myself. I know that the JC has been disliked by fundamentalists ever since it sided with Louis Jacobs against the US but you clearly know about more recent issues than I do. I'm not really interested in which state "David Appletree" lives in, what originally interested me in that JC article was the confirmation that he was based in the States. I think it is relevant that the JIDF has an American origin. I then noticed a blog that pointed out the Kahanist logo in the picture DA supplied the JC with and this has become what I think is the most important thing in the JC page.

I'm all for stomping on antisemitism. I do not feel sorry for Nobody of Consequence getting scared because of JIDF emails. London football crowds have a problem with antisemitism (related to the Spurs hoologan gang being called the Yids which in turn arose from an in-joke by Jews in the script for Till Death Do Us Part). I've reported the worst offenders to the security at Chelsea FC, emailed my MP to support MacShanes campaign against AS at football matches and been attacked on a Chelsea mailing list when I pointed out the connection between the English Unionist (not trades unionism) movement and neo-Nazis. (You can still sometimes see the flag of the old Stormont government at Chelsea matches and I've noticed people with broad cockney accents with the Stormont flag as an earring design.)

However, just as I want to resist antiSemitism, I want to fight bigotry within Jewish communities and the links between the JIDF and Kahanism mean that I cannot regard the JIDF as a good thing. The fact that the media, including the Jewish media, have taken the JIDF on face value allows Kahanists to use it as a recruiting ground. There are several Jews among the people the JIDF attacked. Their original material attacking me said that I was probably not Jewish, but if I was I was a self-hating Jew. The FAZ article is the only coverage in the mainstream media of the JIDF I've seen that has begun to scratch beeath the suface. That the Jewish media and media experts, such as yourself, keep quiet about their own gospel of hate and only highlight their bashing of their mirror images among the pro-Palestinianians or the gentile far right is abad reflection on the Jewish community.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I'd rather not comment on the location of the JIDF spokesperson I've been in contact with as there is a good reason he wants his location removed. That reason related to death threats against him and the about that is available in a number of sources. As a safety matter it must take priority over everything else. Purely from an academic point of view... if the JIDF is a grassroots movement, and is coordinated via the internet... I'm not sure it can really be fix geographically. I gave a number of talks to schools and community organisations a couple of weeks ago. These talks were in Sydney Australia and in two different talks people who said they were members of the JIDF and in contact with the JIDF spokesperson introduced themselves to me. In one case someone had been involved since well before the JIDF gained any press. I know a number of major organisations and officials dealing with racism from different governments monitor the output of the JIDF and find it of interest. Looking purely at what they do on antisemitism... it is something new and interesting.

Some related but gneral discussion... The position of Zionism On The Web is that we have a very vanila definition of Zionism and almost everyone will say "we agree, but you should also add..." and the reason we don't add any more is because they would all add something different. By keeping to the basics we can all agree on, we can work together. Further, if a Jewish organiation is doing something in a manner you feel is incorrect, I believe the correct approach is to speak to them privately about it. One should always try to resolve issues with the smallest number of people possible... before esculating if needed. If you do have a critisism, try to focus on the substance of the critisism and not the organisation as a whole.

As a general principle, one can investigate hatred of Jews, hatred of Muslims, hatred of gays, hatred of travellers... but to investigate "hatred of X minority group by Y minority" is a problem and should be avoided if possible. Where it is not possible is when (for example) an examplination of hatred of X shows that 50% eminates from community Y. Then there is something to talk about and the focus is not simply targetting community Y. Even then there is a need to investigate if it is a subset of community Y or if there is a related factor.

There is much more that could be said... perhaps e-mail me if you want to continue the discussion? I'm not sure it is really wikipedia related, and in as much as it is, my comment immediately above I hope explains I would view with concern anyone specifically looking to find and then critisise any minority group for anything. It does give the appearance of putting the cart before the horse and may be itself be racist in effect if not in intention. Anyway e-mail if you want to discus further.

Oboler (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To do

Writing and updating The Dragon Keeper

JIDF

The page is currently semi-protected for a month. I'm trying to push through some fixes to long term problems during this time. Please feel free to comment on my suggestions. I know you had been thinking about adding material yourself at one point. Feel free to propose anything you think appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

JIDF and sockpuppetry

Thanks for your note, Andre.

In answer to your quesiton, it is not sockpuppetry to sometimes accidentally edit as an IP. Because of Wikipedia politics it is still advisable to be open about it. I maintain a page off my user page to record my IP edits and why they occured. Even among those few edits, there was still a response to one that the edit was used with ulterior motives.

There are reasons other than WP:3RR where the covert use of multiple identities are problematic. These include:

• Any discussion where an understanding of consensus is being sought. If one person is operating several accounts or is logging on from multiple IPs in order to produce the appearance that more people share his/her POV than is in fact the case, then this is sockpuppetry. If you look at this edit you will see an example of an individual logging on twice from the same ISP pretending to be independent editors. Away from this context, if you look at the edit history of User:Nrswanson, you will see that their original block was for using multiple identities to influence discussions.
• Bypassing of blocks. Most of the identified socks of Einsteindonut were created for the purpose of bypassing edit blocks placed on the main account. Again the user I mention above has been guilty of creating ids for this purpose. If you look at what went on at Talk:Greco-Persian Wars last month, you'll see an example of the disruption caused by a banned user editing as an IP.
• For the hiding of conflict of interests. We both have been open about our real names. If you were suddenly to create a new identity to create an article about yourself and then edit the articles about all the places you have worked to explain how you were one of the most significant researchers they ahve ever had, then that would be a harmful use of sockpuppetry. If you look at User:DeafMan's presence at Talk:David Langford or User:Clockback's at Talk:Peter Hitchens you can see examples of individuals openly suggesting changes about their biographies. In contrast, if you look at events last year surrounding the sudden departure of a member of ArbCom, you'll find an example of a minor British politician covertly editing material on other politicians in a way that had an appearance of WP:Conflict of Interest. Unfortunately the JIDF accounts have chosen the path of covertness rather than of overtly saying they represent the group and they have an issue with certain edits.

On the other matter you raise, I've not sought to conceal that I have issues with "David Appletree", "Einsteindonut" and the JIDF. However, the key point is that all my issues with them have flowed out of what happenned on Wikipedia. I hadn't heard of them until I saw a reference to the afd for the JIDF article.

A number of the most problematic Wikipedians have a history of winding up other users, then an admin comes in takes action, is attacked by the first user and then next time they take actions gainst him are accused of being involved. If the involvement is only a result of attempts to deal with the problematic behaviour of the user then it is not grounds to avoid action. "Appletree" only added attacks on User:Nagle, User:Malik Shabazz and myself into his JIDF webspace only after the three of us tried to prevent him from distorting the JIDF article. He cannot then turn around and use the fact that he has attacked us and we may be irritated by it, and indeed by the threatening emails he and his cronies have sent, as grounds to invalidate our continuing to take action against his use of sock and meatpuppets to continue to attempt to influence the contents of the page. If Wikipedia procedures allowed problematic individuals to be rewarded for attacking other editors by those people attacked becoming unable to take further action against the problem editor, then procedures would be very wrong.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for the reply. I'll reply here and drop a note on your page. I know there is supposed to be a way for you to be notified of the updated here, but I forget what code to add for that.

I'm not sure unregistered users should actually affect consensus at all. While there are reasons people may want to be anonymous, there is no good reason for remaining unregistered if you are getting involved in the community (cf simply correcting typos or making a small addition while you read). Logging in multiple times under different usernames IS an issue... but they would both need to be registered accounts if my premise is correct on the value of opinions from IPs.

Seems I was right and Wikipedia:SOCK really is only about registered accounts. Your statement above "If one person... is logging on from multiple IPs in order... then this is sockpuppetry" is therefore technically incorrect. The correct response to problems from IP addresses is to request a block on the IP address or the range. This goes double if you think an anonymous proxy is being used. It's then no longer about the user, but about stopping a proxy being used to damage Wikipedia.

I didn't accuse you of "hiding of conflict of interests" I just said before a discussion develops it would be good to disclose it. Whatever drew you and the IDF into conflict, the end result is that there IS something personal there now. As such you are not an impartial person in this case, and even if you think you are, there are solid grounds for people to suspect otherwise. The impression of a conflict is almost as bad as an actual conflict. As such I think the best thing to do is to have a work with someone else and then leave them to investigate. It's not like Wikipedia will run out of impartial admins and time soon!

Re: editing an article about myself. I know it's just an example... but alas there is no such article to edit! While I occasionally get praise in the press, I don't get attacked in the press much. Most of the real discussion about me and my work is in on blogs. Oh well. Incidentally... you might like to look at this news article I wrote this week on policing the internet [1]. Just for general interest I mean.

I think if the procedures require a new independent person (after an admin investigating a user gets into a personal dispute with that user) that would actually be best. It may be a bit frustrating to the affected admin, but there is no shortage of admins and though you see it in the movies a fair bit, and indeed in Le Miserables, to have a police officer who is monitoring someone who insults, or complains about them... is not good form. It opens the police up to claims of abuse. Also when you start using checkuser things get dangerous fast as privacy legislation can override pretty much everything else and any doubts about the intentional of the person requesting it therefore become important.

Will drop a note on your page now so you spot this. Oboler (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough

I have self-reverted; honestly, the entire article is a cruel mess anyways. As long as it is what it is, there's no sense bickering about the details. Unfortunately, I don't have the sources (and energy) to make it any better; it's an interesting topic though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)