Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Further reading

I've seen this section added. Does someone have an address for a translation of the FAZ article?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. FAZ? The "further reading" link is in English. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung interviewed "David". It was discussed on User Talk:Nishidani - now in User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_6#JIDF_update and lower threads. [1] for the original article. An unofficial translation is here [2].--Peter cohen (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have much the same content as the last time someone (Haaretz?) interviewed "David". It's a softball interview. Not much new. --John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your softball metaphor. The FAZ does explicitly report that the JIDF has a political agenda opposed to land for peace and that it links to anti-Islamic hate sites. This is harder commentary than anything we have cite up to now. BTW, I notice that the unofficial translation is now scored out as a sop to the FAZ. Presumably, they'll object tothis as inadequate.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

rm comment by blocked user

So what do you think the FAZ is saying with

"So kommt es, dass die selbsternannten Kämpfer gegen Online-Hass ihre eigene Homepage mit einer dubiosen Seite namens thereligionofpeace.com verlinken. Der Name ist purer Sarkasmus. Die Seite stellt Mohammed als Befürworter von Mord und Pädophilie dar, zeichnet ein Bild vom Islam als einer Religion des Hasses und vergleicht sie mit dem Ku-Klux-Klan oder der spanischen Inquisition - mit dem klaren Ergebnis: Der Islam ist viel schlimmer."

translated as

"Thus the self-defined fighters against online hatred have linked their homepage to the dubious site of thereligionofpeace. The name is pure saracasm. The site portrays Mohammed as an advocate of murder and paedophilia, draws a picture of Islam as a religion of hatred and compares it to the Ku-Klux-Klan or to the Spanish Inquisition – with the clear result: Islam is much worse."

except that your lot link to a hate site?(Yes I know WP:DNFTT).--Peter cohen (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

rm comment by blocked user

POVPusher, you've just reversed both my edits today to the main page. You seemed certain what the FAZ article said when you challenged me above. Now you claim you can't be sure what it says even though the literal translation that I've provided, has the sense as the unofficial translation you have access to. The other edit you deleted is referenced to the Haaretz article. Haaretz is a WP:RS, and not even an anti-Zionist one, and if you want to say that they have got it wrong, then you have to provide references to other WP:RSs that confirm your claim. Also be aware of WP:3RR and other anti-edit-warring policies. Come up with acceptable - under Wikipedia policy - evidence that backs your criticisms of my edits or leave them alone.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

JDIF Page Lists "AntiIsrael" wiki editors

This Oct 4 page lists "List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors **UPDATED**" - evidently a lot who have edited this page, and others. Anyway, FYI since I didn't see this in the article or on the talk page, in case anyone wants to put it in this article. Carol Moore 16:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

This has been discussed on admin boards and, AFAIK, all those targeted have been informed. I don't think we need dignify the attack page with a mention in the article unless a reliable source analyzes it.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ignore it. To some extent, WP:TROLL applies. Yawn. --John Nagle (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

cmt removed

I'm glad to hear this issue has been thoroughly discussed in appropriate circles since I'd only seen one reference in one place and only one or two people responded. I was not sure fact they have such a list belonged in "organization" section (even if some WP:RS did not mentioned it) because it is an organization's description of one of its own projects. However, perhaps its best not to mention it until there is some WP:RS commentary on JDIF's "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia" - i.e., per WP:Troll. Carol Moore 15:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

comment removed

Reverted back to "21:52, 16 November 2008 Peter cohen", due to deletion of "Criticism" section. Please discuss first. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

cmt removed

There was an imbalance in that all the body of the article had been about the Facebook actions. WP:Lede says that the lead section should be a summary of the article. So it is good that there is now something in the body corresponding to the last part of the lead. I still don't think that the attack page on Wikipedia editors is the most appropriate source to use for Wikipedia content being part of JIDF's actions.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

cmt removed

Machine translation of possible reference

• google translation PhilKnight (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

removed comment by blocked user

From WP:NONENG

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

There isn't equivalent critical coverage to the FAZ article in English. The likes of the Guardian or Independent which might have written critiques haven't chosen to cover the JIDF. In my translation of the quoted clause, I've gone for a literal translation and have preserved the word order except for changing the structure "their own homepage with a dubious site link" to "link a dubious site from their own homepage" as that is better English. The machine translation allows people to check whether my translation, and my other references to the article, are totally off the wall but it has its limits. "Antiislamismus" was not in its dictionary and the ernannten (= named) got omitted from the translation of "selbsternannten Kämpfer" (=self-named fighters). An advantage that German has over Hebrew or Arabic material for ourreaders is that the alphabet is similar to ours and therefore words related to their English translations such as dubiosen and online-Hass can be made out an undestood by an English-speaker not familiar with the language.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

One issue with the FAZ article is that it's mostly an interview with "David". We have to distinguish between what FAZ says as reportage and what "David" says as JIDF PR. --John Nagle (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to help clarify the issues here. I do not believe the FAZ says that the JIDF links to "hate sites" or a "hate site." They only refer to "thereligionofpeace.com" as a sarcastically titled "dubious" site. Considering this organization fights hatred online, we must be very careful not to jump to false conclusions that they promote hate sites, as I feel was done w/ a fuzzy translation. Perhaps we should contact Mr. Gunkel of the FAZ directly for clarification and see if "thereligionofpeace.com" has ever been widely regarded as a "hate site" by any other RS before we label it as such in this case. --Howdypardner (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I don't think what I posted had any problems that way. But, yes, not just the FAZ but most of the material here is sourced from interviews with David or the JIDF site.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdypardner, I've redone the text in that section to use actual quotes from the translation, an accurate translation does say it is a "dubious site" that "draws a picture of Islam as a religion of hatred". Now that is not QUITE the same as saying it is a hate site, but whether it is or not is pure pedentry when we can just use that quote and let readers to draw their own conclusions. The translation is aproved by Mr. Gunkel. Oboler (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

thereligionofpeace.com as "hate site?"

Comment from blocked user removed

I've reinstated the previous version as it puts the quotes in context.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording of it. It must be clear that the JIDF is not linking to a "hate site" and that FAZ did not label thereligionofpeace.com as a "hate site." --Howdypardner (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording reflects the wording in the FAZ article. If the close placing of "fighters against online-hate" next to "dubious site" makes you think that it is being implied that thereligionofpeace.com is a "hate site, then that apparent implication is in the original. What I have done is translate the original words and any subtext in my translation is in the original too.

Anyway, both you and I are at our 3RR limits. It would be nice if someone else here started expressing their opinion so that we have a chance of seeing where consensus might lie.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen is of course right. It's blatantly obvious that thereligionofpeace.com is about indiscriminate dehumanization of muslims, not about convincing muslims to be peaceful. It's also obvious that the FAZ author has seen this, too. This is a very high quality source, and it is being used adequately and moreover for sourcing facts that are verifiably correct. If anything, the current wording is too weak. E.g. "[t]he same article also notes that the JIDF is not apolitical" is absurdly defensive, given the anti-Obama hate piece "Why I Voted For Obama (Satire)" on the JIDF website [3].

Besides, Howdypardner, if you want to attack the translation, you should start by reading and understanding it. Currently it's not clear to me that you have even so much as understood the (simple) sentence structure of the English version. In any case it's a blatant misrepresentation of sources to make the impression that the FAZ described the JIDF as "self-styled fighters against online" and that they also called the JIDF "a 'dubious site' called thereligionofpeace.com". [4] In case you are not aware: there are people who deliberately mess up legitimate Wikipedia content which they don't like so that they can proceed to "repair" it. You had better avoid any appearance of this kind of impropriety if you don't want to be banned (not just blocked) quickly. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the land for peace stuff was what FAZ mentioned not the anti-Obama stuff. Given how prickly things are around this article, I wanted to avoid going "The FAZ say that the JIDF is not apolitical. In fact, they have run material against Obama.", as I might then be accused of claiming FAZ said something about JIDF's stance on Obama. The FAZ comments are as much as any reliable source I know has said about the JIDF being part of the Zionist right and not connected with a more mainstream form of Zionism alla Peres or Olmert.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

About the quotes from the religion of peace site, this disclaimer is surely the mirror image of some of the sites that the JIDF attack. They say they are not antisSemitic, this site says it doesn't dislike Moslems. In fact they say somewhere that they don't allow third party comments on their page because an allied site had done so and people started added attacks on Moslems which then led to that site being accused of being an anti-Moslem hate site. This sounds awfully similar to how the JIDF, Andre Oboler and the ADL accuse sites of being antisemitic because some of the third party commentators who visited those sites said something antisemitic. Now, I don't think it an accident that "David" accused the person who praised the terrorist of being a "pig", just as I don't think that it is an accident that both the JIDF page and the anti-Zionism talk page have had Nazi stuff appear. The perpretators in both types of case knew of a weak spot that the other side had because of their ethnicity and went straight for it, using language that they might not have if their interocutors had had another ethnicity. The accusation in FAZ of anti-Islamism rings true for me, just as accusations of the person who added the nazi stuff being anti-Semitic rings true to me too.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Added 11/17/08 6:36 by User GR: The FAZ article itself is dubious. It erroneously states, for example, that TheReligionofPeace.com refers to Muhammad as a "pedophile." No where is this found on the site, however. The site's page devoted to Muhammad's sex life directly references Sahih Bukhari (the most reliable Muslim source for Muhammad's life) in saying that the prophet of Islam slept with a 9-year-old. However, the same article also presents the case that this does not necessarily mean the Muhammad was a pedophile, even if it indicates bad judgment.

TheReligionofPeace.com states very clearly that Muslims as a people are not to be confused with the ideology of Islam. To quote the site:

"The Muslims that you know are not terrorists. More than likely their interests in life are similar to yours and they have the same ambitions for their children. They should neither be shunned, mistreated nor disrespected merely because of their religion. Their property should not be abused, and neither should copies of their sacred book be vandalized.

"Pre-judging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals nothing about them. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds."'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.11.41 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What you forgot to quote from the site:

The Myth: Muhammad Condemned Pedophilia

The Truth: The legitimacy of “marrying” pre-pubescent girls who have not yet had their “monthly courses” is established both in the Qur’an and in the "perfect example" set by Muhammad for his Muslim followers.

…

Lest there be any doubt by what he meant by “young,” Muhammad set the example by marrying and having sex with Aisha when she was only 9-years-old:

…

According to the most reliable traditions, Aisha brought her dolls to Muhammad’s house for play (Muslim 3341) and he would fondle the little girl in the tub while taking baths with her (Bukhari 6:298). Aisha was just a teenager by the time Muhammad died, but she had already spent over half her life in marriage to him

…

So, no... Muhammad did not condemn pedophilia.

Not even close.

I am not sure that we have been reading the same article. The article that I have been reading does not "[present] the case that this does not necessarily mean the Muhammad was a pedophile, even if it indicates bad judgment", although it does quote Bukhari. [5] And it wasn't hard to find. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

removed comments by blocked user

Let's look at this in slow motion (all italics are mine):

• thereligionofpeace.com: "… sex with Aisha when she was only 9-years-old …" – "Muhammad did not condemn pedophilia. Not even close."
• FAZ: "Die Seite stellt Mohammed als Befürworter von […] Pädophilie dar."
• Translation: "The site represents Muhammad as a supporter of […] pedophilia."
• 74.244.11.41: "The FAZ article itself is dubious. It erroneously states, for example, that TheReligionofPeace.com refers to Muhammad as a 'pedophile.' "
• Howdypardner: "Claiming that someone does not condemn pedophilia and describing their actions with youngsters is not quite the same as labeling them a pedophile."

In a nutshell: 74.244.11.41 attacked a stronger statement than the FAZ article actually made. The stronger statement would have been arguably correct (as a plausible evaluation of the site's intention). Apparently the author chose to tone it down so as not to actually claim that the site labelled Muhammad as a pedophile. That's clearly not "erroneous", and certainly no reason to call the article "dubious". Now you seem to have the same problems with reading comprehension that 74.244.11.41 had. I find it hard to believe that we have two editors who can't see that thereligionofpeace.com arguably does label Muhammad as a pedophile, and at the same time claim that the FAZ article says that the site labels him that way when the FAZ actually does no such thing.

When in a content dispute, please make sure that your concentration is commensurate with your zeal. Or was your point that the article is "dubious" because the author was suspiciously careful to get all the details right? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I haven't stepped on a landmine here, but given we do now have access to an authorised translation, I've reworked this section trying to (a) use the authorised English text, quoting where possible (b) Not change the content from what was here before. The nature of the site being linked to is really not relevant to this article, what is relevant is what FAZ said about it, and why FAZ said this. Specifically the fact that they said it "draws a picture of Islam as a religion of hatred" and juxed-opposed this to the JIDF calling themselves "warriors against online-hatred". I hope people agree that is the real meaning of that paragraph and that these edits have improved this section of the article. Comments welcome. Oboler (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've reworked slightly for grammar, added a ref at the end of each para, removed the reference to "pure sarcasm" when we no longer give the name of the site and removed the German now that there's an authorised translation.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I've edited it a little more... there were still some minor problems (missing spaces etc) but also David's comments again the saudi users were missing context, I've added that now, though I think that line could perhaps be worded better, it looks a little clunky. Have a go? I think it needs to state that the person was Saudi (yes that is Arab, but FAZ doesn't say Arab so I think we should stick with what they used) and that David called them this after they were congratualting themselves on setting up a group to praise a terrorist. How to say that sucinctly is another story... but I hope you can do a better job than I did. :) Oboler (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing today

Could I just note that my edit's from yesterday have again been reverted. Material from Haaretz saying that groups had been restored to their original owners has been censored. Claims are made that the FAZ never accused the JIDF of anti-islamism when the word "Anti-Islamismus" appears in a header over the section where the referenced material comes from. Could other people please join in editing away the half-truths being added by the JIDF's latest mole and reinstating the referenced material that they have removed?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since a major disturbance is underway, and it's getting messy, I think the long-term editors should be notified, Peter. But notification only leads to suspicions of tagteaming (whereas the issue is one of having long-term wikipedians of good standing looking at what's going on. I can't edit it back, as I am on the JIDF's target list, and this means I would appear to have a conflict of interest in their view were I to intervene. But, having checked, it certainly looks like your legitimate edits have been damaged by an interested JIDF-linked SPA party.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Some long-term editors should be watching here. I've prodded in IPCOLL as that is non-partisan. Any individual prodding should be non-partisan perhaps with an exclusion of those who have been blocked for their work here.

You've got your standards of ethical behaviour and I'm not going to try to talk you out of them. However, if the JIDF decided to act on this and add me and John and Hans and anyone else who criticises them, or reverts POVPusher/Howdy/ED's edits, to their list of anti-Israel editors in the hope of shutting us up... Well I would not allow myself to be stopped by such a ploy. All the comedy articles about The Wrong Version, cabals etc. apply in that an organisation from the extremes regards any criticism from the centre as coming from those with minds closed against them and as motivated by malice. Hence their attacks on ARBCOM.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think any of several very fine editors will be identified as anti-Israeli ratbags like some of us. A little patience, Peter. I'm already somewhat ashamed, at giving an ethical reason for not doing the edit I think required in support of you, since often 'ethical' stances can hide mere cowardice, as with many pacifists, of which I am one. Some people may be just busy. . .Well, fuck it, if nothing is done by tomorrow, I'll edit-war on this, and the devil take the hindmost. I hope it doesn't come to that.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm targetted by these people too. However, I might raise my head above the parapet to go with an AfD. PR^talk 19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

removed comment by blocked user.

The amusing thing about all this is that the article is rather pro-JIDF. It doesn't view them as a censorship organization or a group of "hackers" defacing web sites. It doesn't view the whole thing as silly, as the Toronto Star article does. It doesn't cover their big attack on Obama. It doesn't suggest that the JIDF is probably very tiny; it's entirely possible that the whole thing is just "David". The article takes the JIDF seriously, as if it were a significant organization like the ADL or Aish. --John Nagle (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems pro-JIDF. With respect to Obama, I don't think the group's attacks got any press attention, so they're not notable for WP purposes. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by blocked editor removed

WP:EVADE [6]. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash As I suspected, John Nagle and I have been added to the attack list and if you look at User:StopMessing's (aka EinsteinDonut) page you will see this being used against me. AT the moment Hans has not been added.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he is punishing me with lack of attention for being too placable. I have had similar experiences with anti-Jewish POV pushers, and also with pro- and anti-homeopathy POV pushers. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot. How about 48 hours of semi-protection, so we can go do something else for a while? --John Nagle (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New Editors

It is extremely suspicious that 3 new editors have chosen to work on this article today. Given that there have been recent bans/blocks for a couple of individuals who have been POV pushing on the article and that one has already been found to be socking I'm pretty sure that these are not new editors. Although we have a CU in for them, I thought I should comment that the edits to this article are being monitored and that obvious socks will not last long. I'm reluctant to semi-protect the article at this stage but I don't think it will take much further disruption before that becomes an attractive option. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Make that 4 socks in one day. All controlled by the same sockmaster. There is absolutely no history of valid editing of this article by unregistered users. Its quite clear that we are facing a determined attack by offwiki POV pushers to control this article. I simply see no benefit from allowing them to do this so I have semiprotected the article for a significant period. Hopefully that will reduce the wear and tear on regular editors' time and energy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

JIDF's latest complaints

The first aricle here [7] (unless they've added something else) records the JIDF's complaints about our latest updates to the articles. I'm posting the link in case anyone considers any of the complaints valid.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. They have such a long "enemies list" now that it's hard to take them seriously. They had their fifteen minutes of fame, and it's over. Now they're attacking in all directions, hoping to get attention again. WP:TROLL applies. --John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that they're trolls. (Trolls who happen to support a right-wing terrorist organisation which is responsible for the deaths of more Israeli Prime Ministers than any of the Palestinian groups.) But there is an element of doing the right thing. I'm providing an audit trail where people approaching this article can see the JIDF's complaints about our portrayal of them and see that we are not coverign them up. BTW, you should be aware that User:Nobody of consequence did receive threatening emails or posts to his webpage (I can't remember which) after the JIDF posted information about him. Both you and I are more public about our identities than he was but, on the other hand, we didn't post Nazi logos on the JIDF page. So we may not made ourselves quite so much of a target. I don't know whether anyone else they have featured has received threats, though I see that Fayssal is no longer active on ARBCOM.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed one section above, so that if it becomes necessary, it can be oversighted without further collateral damage to the edit history.

Could we please push the pause button on this for the moment..? It has been sent to Oversight, I have commented on the matter to the oversight team, and I've been waiting for feedback before taking the next step. I'll notify everyone involved when we have a path forward, so that the conversation can resume if that is how things pan out. Sorry about this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This matter was referred to Arbcom; I am not sure what they are doing about it. All I can suggest is to stick to reliable sources, and dont include personal details unless they are highly relevant to the topic. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, John. I had been wondering why there was no decision yet.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it and thinking about it. I don't think that edit is oversightable, it is more nasty political comment than release of personal information. Its content is basically useless in terms of discussion of the content of the article, so its removal is appropriate. The person has made only one edit anyway, so unless he creates a family of user accounts there is little point in blocking or engaging in dispute resolution with him. Fred Talk 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When I saw that comment, I moved it to a separate section, because it was top-posted, but otherwise ignored it. Both the pro and anti JIDF factions seem to want attention more than substantive changes to Wikipedia, so WP:TROLL applies. --John Nagle (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-opening an archived issue

Hi all, I've been on a Wikibreak as I've been moving my life between countries, in my absense it seems there was some discussion over the nature of my role with respects to JIDF and some wrong assumptions have been made and archived here [8]. I've already addressed the issue in "WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration" see [9] however I think people here should be notified as well, and I'll also like to know how the misinformation, or at least a right of reply can be included on the archived page. As I am a real person editing under my real name, speculation and misinformation are a real problem. I'm not suggsting any particular resolution, but I'm open to any reasonable suggestions.

As to the issue of my involvement with JIDF, I'll copy what I've already put on the "WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration" page. "I do answer question put to me by people involved in various organisation. Orgnisations I have provide advice to on Web / antisemitism / IT security issues include: universities, government departments, Jewish commnity organiations, security organisations, think tanks, political parties, charities, journalists and newspapers and student groups. I have consulted for / assisted these and other groups on other issues (a bit of background research will show I'm also heavily involved in interfaith work, diversity work, education policy, student representation, process improvement, and research productivity). The JIDF has contacted me with questions and I have provided them with answers, as I do for other organisations. I do not agree with the JIDF on all issues, however I feel the the work they are doing on the topic of antisemitism and combatting the promotion of terrorism is important. You'll note that with the exception of work I have done ON the JIDF, it tends to be the JIDF following my research and not the other way around. If they find it of use to them, then good for them. Likewise for anyone else who finds my work of use and wishes to follow up on any of it."

I'll add a post there shortly as well. I was invited to the Facebook group of the JIDF, which I accepted as I do wish to be notified on what they are doing. The administrator made me an officer, I wrote to them and said I wasn't willing to be an officer of their Facebook group unless it was made clear that I was not a JIDF official. The solution hit upon was to make the position "external consultant". I was not an admin of the group, nor was I an office holder (or indeed member) of the JIDF itself. I am not aware of having ever been listed on the JIDF website in any capasity other than as an author of work they have reproduced. As a profeshional it would be wrong for me to disclose what information I have given any of the people who ask me for advise. What I can say is that I disagree with certain positions taken by a number of organisations I provide advice to. In the case of JIDF I support their efforts in monitoring online hate (including antisemitism and pro-terrorism content), as my latest article [10] makes clear, this is something I think the big organisations should start putting resources into. Similer views have now been expressed by other experts [11]. Do I need to declare an interest because I've shared a panel with Chris Wolf and been in discussion with his organisation (the ADL) on new approaches to combat this problem? I hope not.

Oboler (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the first thing I posted on this issue was wondering how you could be in a list of officers but be an external advisor. Thank you for clarifying that you were the latter and not the former. The JIDF has deleted from public view the page where you were listed but several us saw the contents after Nagle brought it to our attention. Maybe they have it archived and can supply it to you.

If you want the material "disappeared" from the Wikipedia archive, then WP:Oversight seems to be the way to do it, provided they accept it is appropriate. If your're wanting just to clarify things in the archive, then I don't see why you can't add a statement to the archive, provided you clearly label your addition as a later addition. If you want a more complex or subtle change to the archive, then Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is where you can find the experts who know about Wikipedia custom and practice on thsi.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Oboler's issue is with the JIDF, not with Wikipedia. They listed him on their masthead. While the extent of his association with the JIDF is unclear, his papers [12], web site [13], radio show [14] and interviews [15] have generally promoted the JIDF. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect Nagle, my issue is with Wikipedia. If someone could point me to a page on the JIDF site that wrongly included my name, then I agree I would have an issue with them as things stand if there was such a page it was removed before I became aware of it so is an non-issue. As to the links you provide... that is very sloppy research. The first link points to an article that has no mention of the JIDF, indeed in some sense it predates the JIDF (at least in its current form / name adopted after the Yeshiva attack).

As for saying "the extent of his association with the JIDF is unclear", I don't see how you can say that immediately below a post where I have just clarified the issue.

As to the connections you attempt to draw, that borders on a conspiracy theory and makes no sense at all. How does the JIDF using an article (or any other group using that article) months after I publish it (I refer to the first item you cite) say anything about a connection between me and them? If I told you the paper was also published by the Israeli Government as a reprint, would you claim I was now a Mossad spy? The second link is a news item at Zionism On The Web, it notes that I spoke to JIDF and questioned them on what they did. The reason for this is obvious, the news item itself gives my profeshional opinion that they acted within the rules, and I used this information in an op-ed Jerusalem Post then published. It's called research and fact checking, and is I believe something Wikipedia strongly supports, specially when it leads to RS publications that can help improve articles. The third item is the op-ed - already explained. You haven't linked the best one, my piece which actually focuses ON the JIDF action, it is here [16]. Again though, this is published in a peer reviewed journal and the JIDF and the Facebook group are the subjects of the research. It would be a little rich for anonymous Wikipedia editors to specifically complain about people publishing in RS on their field of expertise.

The JIDF have done some good work in the area of combating online antisemitism and against the promotion and praising of terrorism. This is important and as an expert in the field I make no apologies for praising their work specifically in this area, or for criticizing other organizations who should be doing this work and are not. Oboler (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for the link, I've asked for advice here: [17]. Oboler (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Oboler's summary of his history above. It looks like the JIDF claimed him as an "external adviser" at one point, which was not something Dr. Oboler wanted. That's between him and the JIDF. The Wikipedia issue, back when this came up, was WP:COI -- was there a conflict of interest because, as Oboler (talk · contribs), he was editing the article extensively while appearing to be associated with the JIDF? When his name popped up on a JIDF page as an "external adviser", that raised red flags. Dr. Oboler has now been open about his position on the JIDF, and I don't have a problem with that. --John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, I have no problem with your comment above, but I do have a problem with your comment on [18] it promotes both the idea there was a COI (which there was not) and the idea that I was an office holder in the JIDF (the very issue I'd like resolved in the archive). I'm asking for the biography people's advice on how to proceed, i.e. which of the options which Peter has outlined above, or which other options, would be the least damaging and most normal way to proceed in this instance. My issue is purely the fact that I am wrongly said to be an office holder of the JIDF and that this could be used by some sloppy journalist who doesn't check their facts at some point in the future. I think there is a concensus that it should somehow be fixed, the question is how. Also in the above you say it was on a JIDF page, I am aware of it being on the Facebook group, I am NOT aware of it being on a web page. Facebook page are not RS, but in this case there is a specific reason for that. Organisational Facebook groups are typially not seen as an official platform of the organisation. They are more like "supporters clubs", if you want to know what an organisation is up to, join their Facebook group. The group admins may in fact be people who are not staff or officials in the organisation. It is quite common. Again it is the admins who run the groups, the officers of a facebook group are purely symbolic / a way of highlighting particular people's membership of the Facebook group. Oboler (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is now fixed... so I think this section can be archive now Oboler (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Final quote and link to JIDF Guide to WIkipedia Editors

post by sockpuppet of banned user removed

Linking to a page that attacks Wikipedia editors in good standing is highly inappropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your last point. But it is not for you to make this editorial decision, since you have a conflict of interest per the duck test. I will not revert that part of your edit again, but it was unwise, and another editor may choose to revert it.

The link was added by User:DontbeaPOVPUSHER (possibly you?) with this edit. It was removed half a week later with the edit summary "Remove link to attack page". If you don't understand what that means, read the policy section WP:NPA#External links in connection with the guideline WP:Linking to external harassment. See also WP:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site.

The JIDF are obviously not the first non-notable or barely notable individual or group trying to pull that stunt: Attacking individual Wikipedia editors on an external website, and trying to get traffic to that from Wikipedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed Saltonsea (talk · contribs) = Photouploadrr (talk · contribs) = Whataretheyhiding? (talk · contribs) = Freaginantisemites (talk · contribs), all are a  Likely match for Einsteindonut (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I interpret an email that I received from Einsteindonut referring to this section as implicit confirmation that Saltonsea=Einsteindonut. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another of the gang has also been sending me silly emails.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To Einsteindonut: I can only reply to you here, because I am not going to keep our discussion private and your talk page is protected. I did not delete your post. As far as addressing original points is concerned, apparently you still haven't understood that running campaigns against Wikipedia editors, and particular trying to out pseudonymous Wikipedia editors is so far outside the norms on which Wikipedia has been built that you do not have the slightest chance of succeeding. Not listening to this is not a new strategy, and it won't take you anywhere. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If I get any further emails from you or any other "JIDF" (by now I am pretty sure it's a one man operation) sockpuppet, I reserve the right to publish it onwiki. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: You suggested using something like WP:ANI instead. No. I am not going to give you any more publicity there. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity after your comment that you felt forced to go to AN/I for the vandalism here. I opted to go via the sockpuppet board as it's less prominent.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert, Block, Ignore

I think the sockpuppetry on this page would be reduced if we simply applied WP:RBI to the socks as they appear. There is no benefit for allowing an aggressive and harassing sockmasters to disrupt our work so just revert them and report then to WP:AIV for blocking citing this message to explain the immediate block. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)